Ex Parte Lucidarme et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

11760937 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111760,937 06/11/2007
59978 7590 05/05/2016
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thierry Lucidarme
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
800921-US-DIV 9083
EXAMINER
ABELSON, RONALD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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):
patent@csglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THIERRY LUCIDARME, FABRICE ROBERT, PIERRE
EMMANUEL CALMEL, PATRICK LAGRANGE, and
CHRISTOPHE BONNOT
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7-19, 21, and 22. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claim 2 has been canceled. App. Br. 2. Claims 5, 6, and 20 have been
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but containing
allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent format. Final Act. 18.
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
REPRESENTATIVE CLAiivI
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A concentrator for connection on one side to a mobile
radio communication network, and for connection on another
side on a local area network (LAN) having at least a radio head,
the concentrator comprising:
at least one interface to the LAN for receiving incoming
radio samples and transmitting outgoing radio signals;
digital signal processing units for processing at least user
messages and/ or signalling messages to generate outgoing radio
signals and for transmitting these outgoing radio signals to the at
least one interface for transmission from a radio transmitter;
wherein the digital signal processing unit performs at least
one function, said at least one function comprises channel coding
of user messages and/or signaling messages to generate outgoing
channel coded radio signals,
wherein a number of the at least one interface is less than
a number of the at least one radio head.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 7, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Bud (US 5,598,407; issued Jan. 28, 1997),
Ohara (US 4,327,436; issued Apr. 27, 1982), Deo (US 6,975,632 B2; issued
Dec. 13, 2005), and Bexten (US 6,205,133 Bl; issued Mar. 20, 2001).
Claims 3, 4, 8-10, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Bud, Ohara, Deo, Bexten, and
various additional references.
Claims 11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Schenker (US 6,633,223 B 1; issued Oct.
14, 2003), Kimmitt (US 6,530,057 B 1; issued Mar. 4, 2003), Muszynski (US
2
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
5,623,484; issued Apr. 22, 1997), and Okano (US 6,226,272 Bl; issued ivfay
1, 2001).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Schenker, Kimmitt, Muszynski,
Okano, and Lemieux (US 6,205,143 Bl; issued Mar. 20, 2001).
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Bud, Onodera (US 6,330,441 B 1; issued
Dec. 11, 2001 ), Deo, Ohara, and various additional references.
ISSUES
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bud, Ohara,
Deo, and Bexten teaches or suggests wherein the digital signal processing
unit performs at least one function, said at least one function comprises
channel coding of user messages and/or signaling messages to generate
outgoing channel coded radio signals ("performs function" limitation) and
wherein a number of the at least one interface is less than a number of the at
least one radio head ("number of interface" limitation), as recited in
independent claim 1?
B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Schenker,
Kimmitt, Muszynski, and Okano teaches or suggests an interface to the LAN
for receiving outgoing channel coded radio signals, and transmitting non-
demodulated incoming radio signals received from the mobile terminals
("LAN interface" limitation), as recited in independent claim 11?
3
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of
Appellants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the
Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error. We agree with and adopt as
our own the findings, reasons, and conclusions set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer.
We note the following primarily for emphasis.
Issue A: Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 16--19, 21, and 22
Appellants contend the combination of Bud, Deo, Ohara, and Bexten
does not teach or suggest the "perform functions" and "number of interface"
limitations recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants
argue Ohara describes signal monitoring and controlling in a signal line
transmission system, but does not contemplate transmitting channel coded
radio signals. App. Br. 6. Additionally, Appellants argue that combining
Ohara' s cyclic redundancy check (CRC) technology with the radio DET
technology of Bud would be ineffective and would render Bud
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 7. With respect to the
"number of interface" limitation, Appellants argue: (i) Bexten does not
specify the interfaces of the hub are less than the number of radio heads; and
(ii) the high-speed data transports 130 in Bexten appear to be point-to-point
links, which implies that the number of interfaces of the hub is equal to the
number of links and radio heads. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2--4. We are not
persuaded by these arguments.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bud teaches a concentrator
transmitting radio signals. Ans. 19-20 (citing Bud Fig. 1 ). We further agree
with the Examiner that Ohara teaches a concentrator that performs channel
4
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
coding of user messages and/or signaling messages to generate outgoing
channel coded signals. Ans. 20 (citing Ohara Fig. 1, 9:35-38). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches the
"perform functions" limitations. Appellants' argument regarding the
deficiencies in Ohara are not persuasive, as one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
on a combination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Nor
are we persuaded by Appellants' argument that the combination is improper.
The Examiner provides sufficient evidence, which Appellants do not rebut,
that it was well known in the art for DECT cellular radio systems to code
using CRC. Ans. 20.
We also agree with the Examiner that the cited references teach the
"number of interface" limitation. The Examiner finds Bud teaches a
concentrator and Bexten teaches a base station (hub) connected to a plurality
of radio heads. Final Act 2 (citing Bud Fig. 1 ); Final Act. 5 (citing Bexten
Fig. 1 ). The Examiner modifies Bud to incorporate the teachings of Bexten
so that a single interface exists between the concentrator taught by Bud to
the hub taught by Bexten, which then connects to a plurality of radio heads.
Ans. 21. Thus, the combination teaches a number of interfaces (one
interface between concentrator and hub) is less than the number of radio
heads. Id. Appellants' arguments directed to the possible point-to-point
connection between the hub and the radio heads does not address the
Examiner's specific findings and is thus not persuasive.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
5
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
claim 1 and its dependent claims 7 and 21, not separately argued (App. Br.
8).
With respect to independent claim 16 and dependent claims 3, 4, 8-
10, 1 7-19, and 22, Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 1
and merely contend the additional references used in the rejections of these
claims do not cure the purposed deficiencies present in the rejection of claim
1. App. Br. 9. As Appellants do not otherwise separately argue these claims
with particularity, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these
claims for the reasons discussed supra.
Issue B: Claims 11-15
Appellants contend the combination Schenker, Kimmitt, Muszynski,
and Okano does not teach or suggest the "LAN interface" limitation recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue the personal
computer 20 described in Okano does not correspond to a mobile terminal
from which non-demodulated incoming radio signals are received. Id. We
disagree.
We agree with the Examiner that Schenker teaches an interface to a
LAN for receiving outgoing radio signals and transmitting incoming radio
signals from mobile terminals. Ans. 22 (citing Schenker 2: 12-35). The
Examiner uses Okano to teach a LAN performing demodulation.
Appellants' arguments regarding Okano attack the references individually
and do not address the Examiner's specific findings. Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner's additional findings, supported by evidence, that the
personal computer taught in Okano is a mobile terminal that transmits non-
demodulated signals. Ans. 23.
6
Appeal2014-006735
Application 11/760,937
Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the
combination of cited references teach or suggest the "LAN interface"
limitation. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim
11 and its dependent claims 12-15, for which Appellants do not present
separate arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7-19, 21,
and 22.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7