Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 11, 2018

13972766 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/972,766 08/21/2013 Shao C. Lin AVC13-1001US 1483
124903 7590 01/16/2018
Park, Vaughan, Fleming & Dowler LLP — Yao Group
2800 Fifth Street, Suite 110
Davis, CA 95618
EXAMINER
LU, ZHIYU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
sy_incoming @parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAO C. LIN, CHUNG-HSING CHANG,
and SHIH HSIUNG MO
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, Appellants request rehearing of our
October 25, 2017 Decision affirming the rejection of claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), i.e., as unpatentable over Roller et al. (US 2009/
0061787 Al, published March 5, 2009), Devison (US 2010/0124260 Al,
published May 20, 2010), and Bhanji et al. (US 2006/0199622 Al,
published September 7, 2006).
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’ arguments.
For the reasons explained below, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
that we misapprehended or overlooked any point of fact or law in rendering
our Decision. Thus, we deny Appellants’ request to modify our Decision.
ANALYSIS
A request for rehearing “must state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1); see Ex parte Quist, 95 USPQ2d 1140, 1141 (BPAI
2010) (precedential). A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to
express disagreement with a Board decision or rehash arguments previously
presented. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). The proper course for an appellant
dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a
request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See
35U.S.C. §§ 141, 145.
The “Identifying” Limitation
Appellants argue that our Decision misapprehends that Roller and
Devison fail to disclose the “identifying” limitation in claim 1, i.e.,
“identifying, from the plurality of I/O pins of the second interface, one or
more I/O pins that are a subset of the second interface and are mapped to an
RF front-end component based on an address for the RF front-end
component indicated by the command.” Req. Reh’g 7-8. Appellants
contend that the “identifying” limitation “is both different from merely using
the ‘control interface to send a telegram’” and “from merely using an index
and providing a ‘configuration pattern comprising a plurality of bits in
parallel’” as disclosed in Roller. Id. at 7-8 (quoting App. Br. 20 and
Dec. 6). Although Appellants allege that Devison “do[es] not disclose the
disputed claim limitation of ‘identifying, from the plurality of I/O pins, one
2
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
or more I/O pins that are a subset,’” Appellants do not explain how Devison
differs from the “identifying” limitation. Id. at 8.
Koller and Devison both disclose the “identifying” limitation. In
Koller, for example, a baseband device sends control commands or
“telegrams” to a controller device, and the controller device “selects and
adjusts the corresponding [front-end] sub-circuits in response to the” control
commands. Roller ]fl[ 30-31, 36, 39—41, 45, Fig. 2 (baseband device 20 and
controller device 22). Each front-end sub-circuit “represents] a single
circuit designed to achieve a single purpose or a group of circuits which may
be grouped together” due to a logical or structural relationship. Id. ^] 21.
The controller device includes a memory storing configuration patterns
corresponding to “one or more adjustment signals for adjusting one or more
[front-end] sub-circuits for a desired mode of operation.” Id. ^[ 6, 32, 43^44,
48, Fig. 2 (memory 25). In particular, a configuration pattern “corresponds
to an adjustable operating state of one or more sub-circuits of the RF-
transceiver front-ends.” Id. ^[ 44. When the controller device receives a
control command from the baseband device, the controller device “loads one
or more configuration patterns out of the memory” and provides the
retrieved configuration patterns to one or more registers connected to
interface pins for the front-end sub-circuits. Id. 6, 8, 32, 36, 45 46, 48,
51, Fig. 2 (pins 27), Fig. 3 (pins 37). Consequently, “the correct
configuration pattern is applied to the sub-circuits, thereby selecting and
adjusting the sub-circuits accordingly.” Id. ^[ 32.
Roller’s stored configuration patterns correspond to the claimed
mappings between “one or more I/O pins that are a subset of the second
interface” and RF front-end components. Roller’s control commands
3
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
include information indicating the memory addresses containing the
configuration patterns for accomplishing the respective commands. Koller
118, 32, 36, 40^41, 45, 48, 70. Upon receiving a control command, the
controller device (1) determines the relevant memory addresses and
(2) based on the memory addresses retrieves the “required configuration
patterns” that identify the pertinent interface pins for producing the desired
mode of operation for the front-end sub-circuits. Id. HI 48, 70. The different
configuration patterns identify various subsets of the interface pins through
different logic-high/logic-low combinations. Accordingly, Koller discloses
the “identifying” limitation.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, Koller does not “merely” disclose
sending a telegram, using an index, and providing a configuration pattern.
See Koller HU 6, 8, 21-22, 25-26, 30-32, 36, 39-41, 43^18, 50-51, 69-70,
Figs. 2-3. As our Decision notes, the Specification describes an
arrangement like Koller’s. Dec. 6 (citing Spec. HI 25-26).
In Devison, an RF transceiver includes a memory subsystem
containing pre-stored bit patterns “such that each bit pattern corresponds to a
particular control configuration for a specific radio operation.” Devison
HI 29, 32, 35, 43, 49, Fig. 3 (transceiver 102 including memory subsystem
110), Fig. 6 (transceiver 302 including memory subsystem 310). The
transceiver receives from a baseband device (“baseband controller or
baseband processor”) a command containing “an address to access a
memory location of the memory subsystem,” i.e., “an address corresponding
to the desired functional operation” of the front-end components. Id. HI 29,
32-33, 35. The transceiver’s memory subsystem “uses the address to output
the appropriate bit pattern” for producing the desired functional operation of
4
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
the front-end components. Id. 29, 35, 43^14, 49. The pre-stored bit
patterns have bit positions mapped to specific pins, e.g., to enable one
amplifier and disable the other amplifiers. Id. 49-51, Fig. 8. For
example, a “bit pattern can be provided in parallel to statically control
individual control lines” corresponding to individual pins for the front-end
components. Id. 29, 32, 38, 47-49, Fig. 6 (enable signals El, E2, E3, and
E4 used to enable amplifiers 322, 324, 326, and 328, respectively).
Devison’s pre-stored bit patterns correspond to the claimed mappings
between “one or more I/O pins that are a subset of the second interface” and
RF front-end components. The commands provided by the baseband device
to the transceiver include memory addresses for the pre-stored bit patterns.
Devison 29, 32-33, 35, 39 40, 44. When the transceiver receives a
command from the baseband device, the transceiver (1) determines the
relevant memory addresses and (2) based on the memory addresses retrieves
pre-stored bit patterns that identify the pertinent pins for producing the
desired functional operation of the front-end components. Id. 29, 32, 35,
38, 43^14, 47^49. The different pre-stored bit patterns identify various
subsets of the interface pins through different logic-high/logic-low
combinations. Accordingly, Devison discloses the “identifying” limitation.
Changing Roller’s Principle of Operation
Appellants contend that the Board overlooked an argument
concerning changes to Roller’s principle of operation because our Decision
states: “Appellants have not explained how adapting Devison’s teachings or
Bhanji’s teachings to Roller would change Roller’s principle of operation.”
Req. Reh’g 8-9 (quoting Dec. 10). Appellants note that the Appeal Brief:
5
Appeal 2017-005903
Application 13/972,766
argues that using the Devison system “in combination with” the
Koller system would at most provide a system which stores
configuration patterns that correspond to an operation of a
component and that using the Bhanji system “in combination
with” the Koller and Devison systems would at most provide a
system which stores and sets bits in a register space based on
mapped I/O pints [sic], where the mapping corresponds to an
operation of a component.
Req. Reh’g 9 (footnotes omitted); see App. Br. 26-27.
Appellants’ principle-of-operation arguments constitute contentions
that the references’ combined teachings do not yield the claimed invention.
For the reasons explained in our Decision, we disagree with those
contentions. See Dec. 4-9. Appellants’ arguments do not address any
material change in Roller’s operation due to Devison’s teachings or Bhanji’s
teachings. App. Br. 26-27; Req. Reh’g 8-9. Instead, Appellants’ arguments
rest on the erroneous premise that the “Examiner has attributed principles of
operation to the Koller, Devison, and Bhanji cited art that are nowhere
disclosed in any of Koller, Devison, and Bhanji.” App. Br. 25.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we have granted Appellants’ request to
the extent that we have reconsidered our Decision, but we decline to modify
it.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
DENIED
6