Ex Parte Noessing et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 23, 201411489376 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GERHARD NOESSING and ALBERTO CANELLA ____________ Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a method and an apparatus for testing a communication line. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE “[A] line testing procedure is typically regularly performed, to detect faults (e.g., broken lines) and also to identify if a telephone, a fax, or any other terminal device is connected to the line.” (Spec. 1.) This type of 1 Appellants identify Lantiq Deutschland GmbH as the Real Party in Interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 2 testing requires the use of special equipment and is only performed intermittently (id.). “[A] method of testing a communication line including applying a voltage as a function of time on the communication line. The function includes at least one ramp and at least one plateau.” (Id. at 2.) The Specification provides that “the resistances and capacitances are calculated in a differential manner (i.e., by making two separate measurements and taking the difference between these measurements for calculation). This has the advantage that any offsets are cancelled out and therefore the measurements become more precise.” (Spec. 12) Claims 1–9 and 20–31 are on appeal,2 and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-16). Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method of testing a communication line, the method comprising: applying a voltage as a function of time on the communication line, the function comprising at least one ramp and at least one plateau; measuring a current flowing via the communication line while the voltage is applied; and calculating at least one electrical property of the communication line based on the voltage and the current. The following grounds of rejection are before us for review: I. claims 1–3, 5–9,20–22, and 24–31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang3 in view of Chattler;4 and 2 Claims 1–49 are pending, claims 10–19 and 32–39 are allowed, claims 40– 43 are objected to as depending on a rejected base claim (Ans. 3; Final Action 4 March, 22, 2011; see also App. Br. 2). 3 Zhang, US 5,881,130, issued Mar. 9, 1999. 4 Chattler, US 4,634,964, issued Jan 6, 1987. Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 3 II. claims 4 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chattler and further in view of Chen5 or D’Andrea.6 I. The Issue: Obviousness over Zhang and Chattler The Examiner finds that “Zhang does not suggest where the function [of time] comprising at least one ramp and at least one plateau. Chatter teaches a system and method for measuring cable (i.e., telephone twisted pairs) properties. The system includes a wave form generator for generating variable test signal and applying the test signal having clipped triangular waveform (i.e., voltage ramp with plateau).” (Ans. 5.) The Examiner concludes that it would be obvious to apply Chattler’s cable testing technique on Zhang’s method for “accurately and efficiently characterizing of the subscriber line which results in improved test process.” (Id.) Does the preponderance of evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Zhang and Chattler renders the claims obvious? Findings of Fact We adopt the Examiner’s findings and analysis concerning the scope and content of the prior art. The following facts are repeated for reference convenience. FF 1. Chattler disclosed “a system for measuring capacitance in telephone cables [(conductors)] by using a novel voltage ramp charging 5 Chen et al., US 5,881,129, issued Mar. 9, 1999. 6 D’Andrea, US 5,867,557, issued Feb. 2, 1999. App App techn prob (Cha (Cha testin form eal 2012-0 lication 11 ique. . . . lems inher ttler, col. FF 2. Ch [I]nclud signal w connecte signal pr signal. T integrato produce capacita ttler col. 2 FF 3. Ch g cables. The Figu s the inpu 04342 /489,376 [The syste ent with tr 10, ll. 1–13 attler’s sy es a wavef hich is cou d to the co oduced in he receiv r, for integ an output nce. , ll. 20-28 attler’s w Fig. 2 a–c re shows t wave into m] is imm ansmissio .) stem: orm gener pled to th nductor, f the condu er transmit rating the signal whi .) aveform g of Chattl (a) the wav the wave 4 une to the n lines suc ator, for g e conducto or receivin ctor in res s the resul variable r ch is a me enerator p er, reprodu e form pr form gene phase shi h as teleph enerating a r. A recei g a variab ponse to th tant signa esultant si asure of th roduces a ced below oduced by rator, (b) ft and sign one cable variable t ver is le resultan e varying l to an gnal to e conduct specific si : the gener the wave t al delay s.” est t test or's gnal for ator that hat is App App outp (c) s pass lines also chec a tele to D data (Zha digit be u eal 2012-0 lication 11 ut form the hows the o es through FF 4. Zh . It could might be u king for lo FF 5. Fi phone net The Figu igital To A to an anal ng, col. 3, FF 6. Zh al form an sed in the p 04342 /489,376 wave for utput wav the cable. ang disclo be used fo seful for m ad coils.” g. 2 of Zh work. re shows nalog Con og signal, ll. 52-55; ang disclo d passes th rocess of m generato eform that (See Cha sed a syst r checking easuring (Zhang, c ang, repro that “[d]ur verter (DA which is ap see also A sed that “ e samples determinin 5 r and app is receive ttler, col. 5 em “for ch for load c impedance ol. 10, ll. duced belo ing a test, C) 220. plied to th ns. 5.) ADC 222 to microp g whether lied to the d for proc , ll. 7–48; aracterizi oils on oth for purpo 10; see als w, shows waveform DAC 220 e lines TI converts th rocessor 2 a load co cable for essing afte col. 7, ll. ng subscri er types o ses other o Ans. 5.) a test unit data 216 converts th P and RIN e current 14 where il is presen testing, an r the wave 10-52.) ber loop f lines. It than attached t is passed e digital G.” signal into they can t on the d o Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 6 subscriber loop line to which the measurement unit 116 is connected. In the following description, these current measurements are denoted x(t).” (Zhang col. 4, ll. 3-9; see also Ans. 5.) FF 7. Zhang disclosed that “[v]oltage amplifier 226 is likewise connected to the TIP and RING lines such that second sampled signal represents the voltage on those lines. . . . [T]hese voltage measurements are denoted y(t).” (Zhang col. 4, ll. 13–18; see also Ans. 5.) FF 8. Zhang disclosed that “[l]oad coils are detected by using the current and voltage measurements to compute the impedance at the near end of the subscriber loop line. The current is denoted x(t) and the voltage is denoted y(t). The impedance from the near end of the line is computed.” (Zhang col. 4, ll. 51–55.) FF 9. The Specification provides that “[a] plateau herein refers to a period during which the voltage remains constant. A ramp herein refers to a period during which the voltage varies.” (Spec. 3) Principle of Law “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 417. It is proper to “take account of the inferences and creative steps Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 7 that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418. See also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Analysis Appellants contend that Zheng discloses that “sine waves in this stimulus waveform have different frequencies, [and] repeatedly states each sine wave summed to form this stimulus waveform has the same amplitude.” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).) “Zhang requires a Fourier Transform as part of a process of calculating impedance (Reply Br. 3.) There is no reasonable expectation of success in calculating impedance with Zhang’s formula using Chattler’s wave form (see id.). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Chattler recognizes that all cables “under test possesses plural inherent electrical properties. Of particular interest is capacitance” (Chattler col. 4, ll. 37-40; see also Ans. 5). Chattler is directed to testing telephone cable lines using “a waveform generator [that] produces a test signal which is coupled to the conductor” (Chattler, Abstract). Most notably, Chattler’s wave form generator produces a wave that contains at least a ramp and a plateau (FF 2, see (b)), more specifically, the wave is described as a symmetrically clipped triangular wave (Chattler col. 7, ll. 17-18; see also Ans. 5). Chattler applies this specific signal to a communication line for testing (FF 2). Chattler disclosed that an “[i]ntegrating ADC [analog to digital converter] 132 integrates the signal from amp 124 over a predetermined period of time sufficient to provide a display. Integration over time in the ADC 132 Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 8 improves the system resistance to noise.” (Chattler, col. 9, ll. 57-60.) We note that Chattler applies a known wave form onto the test cable (FF 1–3), accordingly, the total wave output is never higher than the input wave. Zhang disclosed a system for measuring impedance on a communication line (FF 4). Zhang’s “stimulus waveform having multiple frequency components is applied to the line” (Zhang, Abstract). The digital to analog converter (DAC) applies the signal to the line (FF 5), and the analog to digital converter (ADC) takes the information received from the current amplifier and voltage amplifier and translates the signal to a digital format for processing (FF 6–7). Zhang calculates the impedance from the current and voltage measurements (FF 8). The Examiner finds that “[i]n this case, both Zhang and Chattler [are] directed to a similar interest, mainly, to determining the characteristic/property of the line by testing. It is recognized that both testing technique [] differ from one another, however[,] the purpose of performing such tests are the same.” (Ans. 7.) “Chattler[’s] known cable testing technique would have been recognized by one skill in the art as applicable to the process of Zhang and the result would have been predictable and resulted in applying variable test signal waveform or signal to the communications line to accurately and efficiently characterizing of the subscriber line which results in improved test process.” (Ans. 5). In response to appellant’s argument that the sine wave (i.e., waveforms) in Chattler’s triangular waveform has a different amplitude. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully disagrees with appellant[s] assertion. First of all, there is absolutely nothing in Chattler’s that suggest or implies that the waveform(s) applied to the terminal of the cable has different amplitude. Furthermore, as can be clearly seen on Figure 2, the Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 9 amplitudes in each of the waveforms appear to be the same in each of the waveform. Thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art would motivate to explore “known line testing techniques” as applicable to other line testing method such as the testing method of Zhang’s. Therefore the rejections satisfy the requirements of a Prima Facie Case of obviousness. (Ans. 7–8.) The Examiner finds that “Zhang does not suggest where the function [of time] comprising at least one ramp and at least one plateau.” (Ans. 5.) The Examiner recognizes that Zhang and Chattler are directed to the testing of communication lines, even though the approach each takes is slightly different (Ans. 7). Chattler puts in a lot of effort at the beginning of the procedure to produce a precise and specific wave form to use as the signal, which in turn requires less manipulation of the endpoint signal in order to determine an electrical property based on the voltage and the current as claimed (FF 1–3). While Zhang’s input waves are not as precise because they can vary in frequency and, therefore, the received endpoint signal requires more manipulation to arrive at the desired result of determining an electrical property based on the voltage and the current (FF 4–8). Appellants note that “although triangular waveforms can be expressed as a series of sine waves by using Fourier series, the individual sine waves summed to form a triangular waveform do not typically have the same amplitudes.” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).) “Hence, because each sine wave in Chattler’s triangular wave has a different amplitude, a person of ordinary skill would not simply substitute Chattler’s triangular waveform into Zhang’s methodology.” (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).) Appellants contend that “[a]s is appreciated by a person of ordinary skill in the art, although triangular waveforms can be expressed as a series of sine waves by Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 10 using Fourier series, the individual sine waves summed to form a triangular waveform do not typically have the same amplitudes.” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4.) We recognize, but are not persuaded by, Appellants contention that substituting the systemically clipped triangular waveform of Chattler into Zhang’s system would necessarily also require the use of Zhang’s calculations. As pointed out by Appellants the Fourier Transform formulas are most suitable for sine waves (see generally App. Br. 4–6 and Reply Br. 3–5). However, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR 550 U.S. at 421. We agree with the Examiner’s position that “one of the ordinary skills in the art would explore various ‘comparable’ techniques that have been improved in the same way as the claimed invention and the result would have been predictable to one of the ordinary skill in the art.” (Ans. 7.) Here, Chattler explains that by using the voltage ramp waveform the system can measure capacitance without the need to account for problems due to phase shift and signal delay (see FF 1–2). Appellants contend that “[b]esides limiting the voltage output, Chattler does not provide any reason for clipping the triangular waveform.” (Reply Br. 3). This argument is also not persuasive because Chattler explains that by specifying the input wave using the voltage ramp charging technique to provide a symmetrically clipped triangular wave form the system “is immune to the phase shift and signal delay problems inherent with transmission lines such as telephone cables” (FF 1). Accordingly, Chattler explains that concerns of applying stimuli, for example were the sum of the amplitude of the sine waves could exceed the input range of the Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 11 digital to analog converter (DAC) as disclosed in Zhang (see Zhang col. 7, ll. 32-36), can be avoided by providing a signal having the form of a symmetrically clipped triangular wave (FF 1). We conclude that the evidence cited by the Examiner supports a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1, and Appellants have not provided sufficient arguments or evidence of secondary considerations that outweighs the evidence supporting the prima facie case. As Appellants do not argue the claims separately, claims 2–9 and 20–31 fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1). II. The Issue: Obviousness over Zhang, Chattler, and Chen or D’Andrea Appellants contend that the rejection of claims 4 and 23 fails because the “primary reference Zhang and Chattler is improper to teach or suggest independent claims 1 and 20.” (App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 6.) As discussed above (I.), we have found no error in the Examiner’s prima facie case based on the combination of Zhang and Chattler. Other than making a general assertion that the primary references do not meet the limitations of the independent claims, Appellants provide no additional arguments with any particularity with respect to claims 4 and 23. “[T]he Board [has] reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2011). Appeal 2012-004342 Application 11/489,376 12 SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Zhang in view of Chattler. Claims 2, 3, 5–9, 20–22, and 24–31 were not separately argued and fall with claim 1. We affirm the rejection of claims 4 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chattler and further in view of Chen or D’Andrea. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation