Ex Parte Moshfeghi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

13919932 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2017)

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.
13/919,932 06/17/2013 Mehran Moshfeghi GLBA.P0046 1062
759048947
ADELI LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
12/19/2017 EXAMINER
CHAKRABORTY, RAJARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
Mail @ adelillp. com
PatentOffice @ adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHRAN MOSHFEGHI
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,9321
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Golba LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,932
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellant describes the invention as “relating] to a method and
system for distributed transceivers and mobile device connectivity.”
Spec. 14.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of communicating data between a mobile
communication device and a plurality of mobile entities, the
mobile communication device and each of the plurality of mobile
communication entities comprising a plurality of distributed
transceivers, each distributed transceiver comprising a
corresponding antenna array comprising a plurality of antennas,
the method comprising:
receiving one or more data streams at a first mobile entity
of the plurality of mobile entities;
configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed
transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the first
mobile entity based on at least one of a current location of the
first mobile entity and a speed of the first mobile entity to
transmit the received one or more data streams to a second
mobile entity of the plurality of mobile entities;
configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed
transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the second
mobile entity based on at least one of a current location of the
second mobile entity and a speed of the second mobile entity to:
receive the one or more data streams from said one
or more distributed transceivers and the corresponding
antenna arrays of the first mobile entity; and
transmit said one or more data streams to the mobile
communication device; and
configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed
transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the mobile
communication device to receive said one or more data streams
2
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,932
transmitted from said one or more distributed transceivers and
said corresponding antenna arrays of the second mobile entity.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 32-36, 38, and 41^14
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking
(US 2009/0156227 Al, pub. June 18, 2009) and Rofougaran
(US 2010/0136922 Al, pub. June 3, 2010). Final Act. 2-12.
2. Claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 28, 31, 37, and 40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Rofougaran, and Hoshino
(US 2005/0181755 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2015). Final Act. 12-15.
3. Claims 5, 15, 30, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Rofougaran, and Schmidt
(US 2012/0194385 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2012). Final Act. 15-16.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Claim 1 requires that first and second mobile entities have their
transceivers and antennas configured based on at least one of a speed and a
location of the mobile entities. The Examiner finds Frerking discloses “a
mobile handset 404 that communicates with base station 402 in Fig. 4,
wherein mobile handset 404 includes multiple transceivers . . . and base
station 402 includes multiple transceivers.” Ans. 19. The Examiner further
finds the mobile handset and base station transmit communications of data
streams. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds “Rofougaran discloses mobile communication
devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 in Fig. 3 that communicate with each other via
3
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,932
an access point (AP) 110” and include a plurality of wireless transceivers.
Ans. 19—20. According to the Examiner, these mobile communication
devices have integrated circuits (e.g., IC 50) that “generate[] motion
parameters based on motion of the mobile communication device.” Ans. 19.
Combining the teachings of Rofougaran with Frerking, the Examiner
finds the combination
discloses a communication system that includes multiple mobile
communication devices, wherein each mobile communication
device includes a plurality of transceivers. Each of the mobile
devices can configure/synchronize/select their transceivers to
transmit/receive data streams according to current channel
characteristics (such as change in transmit/receive characteristics
with motion of the mobile communication device) and mobile
communication devices can generate motion parameters based
on motion of the mobile communication devices.
Ans. 20.
Appellant argues that the devices depicted in Figure 3 of Rofougaran,
which include mobile communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125, and
access point 110, do not teach the first and second mobile entities. See App.
Br. 13-17.
Referring first to access point 110, Appellant argues that “access point
110 in Fig. 3 is [not] a mobile entity” because it is “non-mobile”2 (App.
Br. 14-15); see also Reply Br. 4 (“the difference between the recited mobile
2 Because we reverse the Examiner’s decision based on other grounds, we do
not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument that Rofourgan’s access point
does not teach a mobile entity because it is non-mobile. However, we note
Appellant’s Specification describes that the mobile entity “may be semi­
stationary or fixed entity .... For example, it may be installed on a lamp
pole, a structure such as a building and/or a rooftop.” Spec. 127. Thus,
even if Rofougaran’s access point is fixed at a certain location, it may still
teach or suggest a mobile entity as claimed.
4
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,932
entities in claims 1 and 11 and the access points disclosed in Frerking and
Rofougaran is that the recited mobile entitles are mobile access points[,]
while the access points disclosed in Frerking and Rofougaran are fixed
access points”). Appellant contends that there is “no reference to the speed
or location of the access point AP 110 being used to configure any
components of the access point.” App. Br. 15. Instead, according to
Appellant, Rofougaran discloses that the location/motion information
applies to the other mobile communication devices depicted in Figure 3, not
the access point. App. Br. 15.
Referring to the mobile devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 of Rofougaran’s
Fig. 3, Appellant argues these devices also fail to disclose the claimed first
and second mobile entities because they “are not devices that receive one or
more data streams and transmit them to another device (a characteristic of an
access point).” App. Br. 16. As such these devices, according to Appellant,
are “similar to the [claimed] mobile device . . . and not the recited first and
second mobile entities.” App. Br. 17.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds
Rofougaran, which discloses a set of communication devices 91, 93, 97, and
125 that communicate through access point 110 (Ans. 19-20; see also
Rofougaran Fig. 3) teaches or suggests the claimed first and second mobile
entities having their transceivers and antennas configured based on at least
one of a speed and a location of the mobile entities (Final Act. 5; Ans. 19-
20; Rofougaran 146). The Examiner finds an access point “qualifies as a
‘mobile entity.’” App. Br. 20. However, although Rofougaran teaches that
5
Appeal 2017-006503
Application 13/919,932
the communication devices generate location and motion parameters, it does
not teach that access point 110 generates these parameters. We therefore
agree with Appellant that access point 110 does not correspond to or suggest
either of the claimed first or second mobile entities.3
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 or of independent claims 11, 27, and 36, which contain
commensurate limitations and were rejected on the same basis. See Final
Act. 2—5. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of the claims that depend from claims 1, 11, 27, or 36.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—44 is reversed.
REVERSED
3 The Examiner also states that the claims do not preclude the presence of an
access point to enable communication between communication devices 91,
93, 97, and 125 (Ans. 20), implying an alternative set of findings that may
not rely upon access point 110 as corresponding to one of the claimed
mobile entities. However, the Examiner does not explicitly make findings as
to whether and how communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 correspond
to the claimed first mobile entity, second mobile entity, and mobile
communication device that send and receive the claimed data stream. We
have, therefore, not considered the merits of such findings in our decision.
6