Ex Parte Moshfeghi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

13473144 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/473,144
153575 7590
Makoui Law, PC
3336 Alginet Dr.
Encino, CA 91436
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/16/2012 Mehran Moshfeghi
06/04/2018
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.
GLBA.P0041 1004
EXAMINER
CHAKRABORTY,RAJARSHI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2018 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):
docket@makouilaw.com
ali@makouilaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEHRAN MOSHFEGHI
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, 22, 25, 27, and 29, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Golba LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Introduction
Appellant describes the invention as relating "to a method and a
system for a repeater network that utilizes distributed transceivers with array
processing." Spec. ,r 7; see also ,r 10 (referring to the Figures and their
description for a summary of the invention). One device with multiple
distributed transceivers is configured as a relay device for receiving an input
data stream from a source device and transmitting a corresponding relay data
stream to at least one other device. Abstract; see also Figs. 4---6.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of relaying a plurality of data streams
between a source device and a destination device, the source
device comprising a set of distributed transceivers, each
distributed transceiver of the source device comprising an
antenna array comprising a plurality of antennas, the method
compnsmg:
in a relay device that comprises a set of distributed
transceivers, wherein each distributed transceiver of the relay
device comprises an antenna array comprising a plurality of
antennas, wherein the antenna array and the antennas of each
distributed transceiver of the relay device is different than the
antenna array and the antennas of other distributed transceivers
of the relay device:
[a] configuring the antenna arrays of a plurality of
distributed transceivers in the set of distributed transceivers of
the relay device to concurrently receive a plurality of
independent data streams over a first carrier frequency from the
antenna arrays of a plurality of distributed transceivers in the set
of distributed transceivers of the source device, wherein the
antenna array of each distributed transceiver in the plurality of
distributed transceivers is configured to receive a different
independent data stream in the plurality of independent data
streams;
2
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
[b] configuring the antenna arrays of one or more
of distributed transceivers in the set of distributed transceivers
of the relay device to transmit one or more data streams to the
destination device over the first carrier frequency, wherein the
plurality of distributed transceivers of the relay device is
different than said one or more distributed transceivers of the
relay device;
receiving the plurality of independent data streams
over the first carrier frequency from said source device via said
configured antenna arrays of the plurality of distributed
transceivers of the relay device, wherein each of said plurality
of data streams is received at the antenna array of a different
distributed transceiver in the plurality of distributed
transceivers; and
transmitting at least one relay data stream corresponding
to said plurality of independent data streams over the first
carrier frequency to said destination device via said configured
antenna arrays of said one or more distributed transceivers of
the relay device.
App. Br. 21-22 (Claims App'x) (reference letters [a] and [b] added to
identify two separately disputed limitations).
Rejections and References
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, 14, 15, 17-20, 27, and 29 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Forster (US 2012/0149300
Al; June 14, 2012), Frerking (US 2009/0156277 Al; June 18, 2009), and
Mansour (US 7,574,236 Bl; Aug. 11, 2009). Final Act. 5-17.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 stand rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable
over Forster, Frerking, Mansour, and Sato (US 6,718,159 Bl; Apr. 6, 2004).
Final Act. 18-22.
3
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over
Forster, Frerking, Mansour, and Key (US 2011/0003610 Al; Jan. 6, 2011).
Final Act. 22-24.
Claims 22 and 25 stand rejected under§ I03(a) as unpatentable over
Forster, Frerking, Mansour, and Nam (US 2011/0212684 Al; Sept. 1, 2011).
Final Act. 24--26.
ISSUES
Appellant raises four issues in arguing Examiner error for the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11: 2
1) the Examiner's proposed modification of Forster would render "the
RFID transponders and the relay device of Forster unfit for their
intended use" (App. Br. 9; see id. at 9-10) (emphasis omitted);
2) there would have been no motivation for an ordinarily skilled
artisan to have combined Frerking and Mansour with Forster as
proposed by the Examiner (App. Br. 10-12); and
3, 4) the combination of Forster, Frerking, and Mansour neither teaches
nor suggests the requirements of steps [a] or [b] ( identified above
in the Introduction) (App. Br. 12-17).
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding the cited prior art
teaches the limitations recited in claims 9, 25, and 27. App. Br. 17-20. 3
2 Appellant argues claims 1 and 11 together as a group. App. Br. 9-17
( claim 11 recites a device with limitations commensurate to the steps recited
in claim 1, see App. Br. 23-24 (Claims App'x), and the Examiner uses the
same findings and reasons to reject both claims 1 and 11, see Final Act. 5-
10). We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 Appellant argues claim 9 with claim 19, claim 22 with claim 25, and claim
29 with claim 27 (claims 19, 22, and 25 depend from claim 11 and recite
limitations commensurate to those of claims 9, 25, and 27, respectively, see
App. Br. 25-26 (Claims App'x), and the corresponding claims stand rejected
based on the same findings and reasons, see Final Act. 14--15, 16-17, and
4
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 is directed to a relay device method of using distributed
transceivers with antenna arrays to receive multiple source data streams over
a single frequency and to transmit at least one corresponding output data
stream to a destination device over the same frequency. See Spec. ,r,r 20-24.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the RFID repeater of Forster for
teaching "[a] method of relaying a plurality of data streams between a source
device and a destination device," in which a "relay device" receives a
"plurality of independent data streams over the first carrier frequency from
said source device" and transmits "at least one relay data stream
corresponding to said plurality of independent data streams over the first
carrier frequency to said destination device," as recited. Final Act. 5-6
(citing Forster ,r,r 2, 24, 25, 28, 51, 52, and Fig. 5). The Examiner then relies
on Frerking and Mansour for teaching the remaining limitations of claim 1
related to distributed transceivers and antenna arrays, and concludes it would
have been obvious for an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify the relay device
of Forster based on those teachings to arrive at the invention of claim 1.
Final Act. 6-10 (citing Frerking ,r,r 33-36, 39, 51, 53, 94, and Fig. 4;
Mansour 1:55---63; 3:42-50; 4:14--25, and Figs. 1, 2) (specifically relying on
Frerking to teach "the source device comprising a set of distributed
transceivers" and on Mansour to teach "each distributed transceiver of the
source device comprising an antenna array comprising a plurality of
antennas").
24--26). We select claims 9, 25, and 27 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because the RFID repeater of
Forster is designed for RFID transponders, which are "simple devices
powered by either a battery or by interrogation signals," and the Examiner's
modification of Forster's components to include distributed transceivers that
each has an antenna array, as recited, "would render the system of Forster
unfit for its intended use as a group of RFID transponders and an RF
repeater used to collect data from the RFID transponders." App. Br. 9, 10
(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive. As In re Gordon explains, the
argument that a proposed combination of references would render one of the
references unsuitable for its intended purpose or would change its principle
of operation effectively is a teaching away argument. 733 F .2d at 902
( concluding "French teaches away from the board's proposed modification"
because "if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be
rendered inoperable for its intended purpose"). The Federal Circuit has held
"[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,553 (Fed.Cir.1994)). 4
4 "If references taken in combination would produce a 'seemingly
inoperative device,' ... such references teach away from the combination
and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness."
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d 1339, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
( citation omitted); see also In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F .3d
1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("a reference teaches away from a combination
when using it in that combination would produce an inoperative result," but
6
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
As discussed above, the Examiner maps Forster's RFID repeater to
the "relay device" of claim 1. Certainly for simple RFID tag reading, the
modifications to use distributed transceivers as taught by Frerking and
antenna arrays as taught by Mansour result in increased cost and power
consumption power vis-a-vis the disclosed embodiments of Forster. The
teachings of Forster, however, are not limited to the preferred embodiments
for RFID tag reading. "A reference must be considered for everything it
teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it
is describing and attempting to protect." EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal
Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that modifying Forster's repeater to use
distributed transceivers as taught by Frerking and antenna arrays as taught
by Mansour does not render the repeater unfit for its intended purpose. Ans.
2-3. The cost and power disadvantages do not rise to the level of a teaching
away because they do not defeat the intended purpose of receiving from
multiple sources and transmitting to a destination. As the Examiner finds,
and we agree-
As would be immediately obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art, a repeater or relay in a given communication system
can include multiple transceivers and antennas in order to
improve communication diversity ( and overcome interference,
shadowing etc.) via Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO).
Improving communication diversity in Forster's RF repeater
system, by incorporating multiple transceivers and antennas in
the transponders and repeater, would not make Forster's system
unfit for its intended use. In fact, it would significantly
the obviousness analysis must account for "modifications that one skilled in
the art would make to a device borrowed from the prior art").
7
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
improve the performance of Forster's system (i.e. the very basis
for MIMO relay systems in heterogeneous networks).
Ans. 2-3.
Appellant relatedly argues the Examiner errs in combining the
teachings of Frerking and Mansour with the RFID reader teachings of
Forster, contending "[t]here are no motivations or justifications to change
the simple control unit of Forster to a sophisticated control unit to configure
multiple transceivers and their associated antenna arrays." App. Br. 12; see
also Reply Br. 6-7. This is also unpersuasive. A reason to combine
teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings
within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those
skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS
Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). We also note
"[ t ]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d
1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Keller).
Here, the Examiner finds ample motivation in Frerking and Mansour
to combine their teachings into the "simple" RFID system of Forster. Final
Act. 9, 10 (citing Frerking's "spatial, frequency and/or
transmission/reception diversity" teachings related to its multiple
transceivers and Mansour's "beamforming and MIMO" teachings related to
its phased array antenna); see also Ans. 3--4 (supplementing the findings
from the rejection by additionally citing Frerking ,r,r 5, 11, 25, 50; Mansour
8
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
3:42-50) (emphasis omitted). We find the Examiner has sufficiently
"articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006); see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
( quoting Kahn).
Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination
of Forster, Frerking and Mansour teaches or suggests:
configuring the antenna arrays of a plurality of distributed
transceivers in the set of distributed transceivers of the relay
device to concurrently receive a plurality of independent data
streams over a first carrier frequency from the antenna arrays of
a plurality of distributed transceivers in the set of distributed
transceivers of the source device, wherein the antenna array of
each distributed transceiver in the plurality of distributed
transceivers is configured to receive a different independent
data stream in the plurality of independent data streams,
as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 12-15; see also Reply Br. 7-9.
Specifically, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in finding Frerking
teaches or suggests the recited requirement "of the relay device to
concurrently receive a plurality of independent data streams from the
antenna arrays of a plurality of distributed transceivers [ of] the source
device." App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that Frerking's disclosure of
simultaneously receiving GSM and GPRS services does not teach the recited
requirement for concurrently receiving two data streams at the same
frequency because simultaneous reception of those two services occurs over
two different frequencies. Id.; see also Reply Br. 7-8.
This argument is unpersuasive because it does not address Frerking's
separate disclosure of using spatial multiplexing to transmit multiple data
streams. Specifically, Frerking discloses that "[ s Jpatial multiplexing is a
9
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
multi-transceiver technique that can provide increased data rates," which
"utilizes a common frequency channel, but splits a data stream into multiple
streams [] transmitted by multiple antennas on the channel." Frerking ,r 33
( cited at Final Act. 7 ( also explaining how splitting a data stream up into
multiple data streams in a MIMO system teaches independent data streams)).
Appellant's argument regarding GSM and GPRS does not explain how the
Examiner errs in relying on Frerking' s independent disclosure of spatial
multiplexing for teaching concurrently receiving a plurality of independent
data streams.
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of
Forster, Frerking and Mansour teaches or suggests:
configuring the antenna arrays of one or more of distributed
transceivers in the set of distributed transceivers of the relay
device to transmit one or more data streams to the destination
device over the first carrier frequency, wherein the plurality of
distributed transceivers of the relay device is different than said
one or more distributed transceivers of the relay device,
as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 15-17; see also Reply Br. 9-10.
Specifically, Appellant contends "none of the cited references
discloses a relay device and a source device, each with multiple transceivers,
each with an array of a plurality of antennas, to communicate with [each]
other." App. Br. 15 (emphasis added). The Examiner, however, does not
rely on a finding that any one cited reference individually teaches that
combination of requirements-the Examiner finds the combination of
Forster, Frerking, and Mansour teaches the recited limitation. See Final Act.
6-10; Ans. 6-7. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
10
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Keller, 642 F .2d at 425 ( explaining the relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of the references).
Thus, Appellant's contention that the Examiner errs by "cit[ing]
Mansour for disclosing each distributed transceiver of the device comprising
an antenna comprising a plurality of antennas" is unpersuasive. App. Br. 15;
see also id.at 16 (explaining Mansour's base transceiver station (BTS) does
not disclose multiple transceivers). Appellant does not persuasively rebut
the findings that Frerking discloses a plurality of distributed transceivers in a
single base station, that Mansour discloses an antenna array for each of a
plurality of transceivers, and that the combination of cited art teaches
"devices, each with multiple transceivers and each with an antenna array of a
plurality of antennas, as claimed in the instant application." Ans. 6-7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. In doing so, as consistent with our discussion above, we adopt as
our own the Examiner's findings and reasons set forth in the Final Rejection
and in the Answer.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites "[ t ]he method according to claim 1 further comprising
determining connection types and communication protocols, and allocating
resources to said plurality and said one or more distributed transceivers of
the relay device." App. Br. 23 (Claims App'x). The Examiner finds
Frerking teaches this additional requirement. Final Act. 14--15 ( citing
Frerking ,r,r 5, 27, 51, 53, and Fig. 4). Appellant argues the Examiner errs
because "Frerking neither in the cited paragraphs nor anywhere else
discloses or suggests determining communication protocols and allocating
11
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
resources to said plurality and said one or more distributed transceivers of
the relay device." App. Br. 18.
This argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner responds that Frerking
teaches the requirements of claim 9 by its disclosure of determining the
wireless link characteristics and allocating resources accordingly ("e.g., in a
MIMO arrangement") to allow the system to "select a multi-transceiver
communication technique suitable to the characteristic of the wireless link."
Ans. 7-8 ( quoting Frerking ,r 27). We agree with the examiner-artisans of
ordinarily skill would have understood a wireless link equates to a wireless
connection, and that Frerking's disclosure of determining wireless link
characteristics teaches determining the connection type. Frerking also
discloses implementing various technologies over its multiple transceiver
architecture (e.g., using OFDMA or SDMA (i-f 33)) that involve a variety of
different protocols (e.g., GSM or GPRS (i-f 93)). We agree skilled artisans
also would have understood Frerking's allocation of resources for multi-
stream transmission and decoding involves determining the protocol used by
the data streams.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9.
Claim 25
Claim 25 recites:
The method according to claim 1, wherein receiving said
plurality of independent data stream[ s] and transmitting said at
least one relay data stream comprises concurrently (i) receiving
said plurality of independent data streams from said source
device and (ii) transmitting said at least one relay data stream to
said destination device using a same time slot for receiving the
plurality of independent data streams and transmitting the at
least one relay data stream.
12
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that, in view of the teachings of Forster, Frerking,
and Mansour, Nam's disclosure of a full duplex scheme in which "relay
equipment receives a signal from a transmitter, and relays the signal to a
receiver at the same time and at the same frequency" (Nam ,r 6) teaches this
requirement. Final Act 24--26.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because "[ n ]othing in the
disclosure of Nam suggests that full duplex mode is used to receive and
transmit data streams using the same time slots." App. Br. 19; see also
Reply Br. 12 (similar argument). This is unpersuasive. Nam plainly
discloses a relay device that receives and transmits a signal "at the same
time." Nam ,r 6. Regardless that Nam never refers to "time slots," we agree
with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
Nam's disclosure of receiving a data stream from a source and transmitting
the data stream to a destination "at the same time" to teach or suggest doing
so "using the same time slots," as recited. See Structural Rubber Products v.
Park Rubber, 749 F.2d 707, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining the teaching in
the prior art reference need not be ipsissimis verbis). To the extent
Appellant argues Nam fails to teach receiving a "plurality of independent
data streams" at the same time as transmitting a relay data stream, we find
this unpersuasive in view of Nam's disclosure in combination with the
teachings of Forster, Frerking, and Mansour.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 25.
13
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
Claim 27
Claim 27 recites:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the antenna
arrays of the plurality of distributed transceivers of the relay
device and the antenna arrays of the plurality of distributed
transceivers of the source device are configured to
communicate said independent data streams over said first
carrier frequency to provide spatial diversity.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner primarily relies on Frerking for teaching these
requirements. Final Act. 16-17 (citing Frerking ,r,r 26, 53) (also citing
Forster for teaching a "relay device" that repeats data from a "source" and
Mansour for teaching antennas may be "antenna arrays").
Appellant argues the Examiner errs due to an erroneous finding in the
rejection of claim 1, viz, that the Examiner errs in finding that in Frerking,
"[e]ach of these N separate data streams is communicated (transmitted and
received) via multiple separate antennas, and in a MIMO system will carry a
specific portion of the original wireless signal thereby making each of these
data streams independent." App. Br. 20 (quoting Final Act. 7 (emphasis by
Appellant)); see also Reply Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant contends that the
Examiner "has not provided any reasons that the system of Frerking can at
the same operate both in MIMO and spatial diversity. Rejecting the same
devices recited in claims 27 and claim 1, upon which claim 27 depends,
using two different embodiments of Frerking is accordingly improper."
App. Br. 20. Appellant argues claims 1 and 27 recite "communication of
independent data streams over a first carrier frequency to provide spatial
diversity and not MIMO functionality" and "MIMO configurations by their
14
Appeal 2017-011774
Application 13/473,144
nature create interdependencies and are not capable of transmitting
independent data streams as recited in the claims." Reply Br. 13.
Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Appellant's
arguments are inconsistent with Frerking' s description that variations of
MIMO technology can include, inter alia, spatial multiplexing and/or
diversity coding techniques. See Frerking ,r 31. As the Examiner answers
by finding, and we agree, claim 27 reads on MIMO technology as disclosed
by Frerking. Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 27.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1-20, 22, 25, 27, and 29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
15