Ex Parte Partee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

14186373 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/186,373 02/21/2014
23345 7590
MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
1750 TYSONS BLVD
SUITE 1800
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
09/05/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jimmie Paul Partee
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.
2067562-0126PTUS 8198
EXAMINER
YANG, JIANXUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2018 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):
patents@mcguirewoods.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIMMIE PAUL PARTEE
Appeal2017-010318 1
Application 14/ 186,373 2
Technology Center 2600
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-18. Claim 2 was canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Mar.
23, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 3, 2017), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Feb. 21, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed May 3, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept.
30, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ATC Logistics &
Electronics, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to a test chamber comprising a
case having multiple chambers, which are isolated to prevent radio
frequency ("RF") signals from entering the chambers. Abstract. Claim 1 is
illustrative of subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1. A wireless test chamber, comprising:
a case comprising a plurality of isolation chambers and a
single removable cover for accessing the plurality of isolation
chambers, the single removable cover configured to cover all of
the plurality of isolation chambers, wherein the case is
configured to prevent radio frequency signals from entering and
exiting the plurality of isolation chambers;
a plurality of wireless access points (W APs ), wherein
each of the plurality of isolation chambers includes one of the
wireless access points; and
interfaces extending from the exterior from the case and
connected to the plurality of W APs.
REJECTIONS 3 ON APPEAL
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth Systems, Inc.,
Azimuth Radio Proof Enclosures, (Mar. 2010),
http://www.azimuthsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/PB_RadioPrf_031 O_sq
h_v2.pdf (hereinafter "Azimuth") and Rodriguez, II, et al. (US 4,974,317;
issued Dec. 4, 1990) (hereinafter "Rodriguez"). Final Act. 2--4.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth, Rodriguez, and
National Instruments, Understanding Ingress Protection (IP) Ratings, (Jan.
3 We group together the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejections that are based on the
same combination of references.
2
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
15, 2013), http://www.ni.com/white-paper/8473/en/pdf (hereinafter "NI").
Final Act. 5.
( 3) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth,
Rodriguez, NI, and Alexander et al. (US 2008/0026748 Al; published Jan.
31, 2008) (hereinafter "Alexander"). Final Act. 6-7, 14--19.
(4) The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth, Rodriguez, and
Griesing et al. (US 6,903,910 Bl; issued June 7, 2005) (hereinafter
"Griesing"). Final Act. 7-8.
(5) The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth, Rodriguez, and
Foegelle (US 2008/0056340 Al; published Mar. 6, 2008) (hereinafter,
"Foegelle"). Final Act. 8-9.
(6) The Examiner rejected claims 9-11, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Azimuth, Rodriguez,
and Alexander. Final Act. 9-13.
(7) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Alexander, Azimuth, Rodriguez,
and Chandrasekaran et al. (US 2014/0283029 Al; published Sept. 18, 2014)
(hereinafter "Chandrasekaran"). Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
3
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons regarding
independent claim 1 set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2--4) from which this appeal is taken and the Examiner's Answer
(Ans. 4---6, 22-25). We highlight and address, however, specific findings
and arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Case for preventing transmission o(RF signals
Independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, "a case" that (i) "is
configured to prevent radio frequency signals from entering and exiting" a
plurality of isolation chambers present within the case, and (ii) has "a single
removable cover" for accessing the isolation chambers. App. Br. 27 (Claim
App.). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's finding (see Ans. 22
( citing Azimuth, 3 (middle Figure)); Final Act. 2-3 ( citing Azimuth, 2-3))
that Azimuth teaches a case configured to prevent RF signals from entering
and exiting two isolation chambers, with each chamber having its own
removable cover (i.e., two covers). App. Br. 13-15.
Rather, Appellant focuses on the Examiner's finding (see Final Act.
3--4 (citing Rodriguez, Fig. 2)) that Rodriguez teaches a single removable
cover for covering multiple chambers or partitions. App. Br. 14--15.
Appellant argues that Rodriguez' cover allows for the transmission of RF
signals to RF components that are within RF modules covered by
Rodriguez' cover. App. Br. 14 (citing Rodriguez, 1:19-23, 1:27-35, 3:34--
37, Fig. 2). Appellant contends that when Rodriguez' single removable
cover is combined with Azimuth's case, the combination fails to teach or
suggest the case of claim 1 because the single removable cover would not
4
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
prevent radio frequency signals from entering and exiting the case's
isolation chambers. Id. at 14--15; Reply Br. 6-8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Appellant unduly
focuses on Rodriguez' individual teachings rather than what the combined
teachings of Azimuth and Rodriguez would have conveyed to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references"); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981).
More specifically, Appellant incorrectly focuses solely on whether
Rodriguez' single cover would prevent the transmission of RF signals while
ignoring Azimuth's teaching of a case with multiple covers providing RF
signal isolation, on which the Examiner also relies. App. Br. 13-15; see,
e.g., Final Act. 3 (relying on Azimuth for "wherein the case is configured to
prevent radio frequency signals from entering and exiting the plurality of
isolation chambers" and on Rodriguez for "a single removable cover for
accessing the plurality of isolation chambers, the single removable cover
configured to cover all of the plurality of isolation chambers").
We agree with the Examiner's finding (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 22-23)
that the combination of (i) Rodriguez' teaching of a single cover, in lieu of
Azimuth's multiple covers, and (ii) Azimuth's teaching of a case preventing
RF signal transmission, teaches or suggests the case of claim 1. See
Rodriguez Fig. 2; Azimuth 2-3; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007) (finding the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the
skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton").
5
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
Furthermore, we disagree with Appellant's argument that Rodriguez'
teaching of a single cover is limited to a cover that allows for the
transmission of RF signals. App. Br. 14 ("There is no indication in
Rodriguez that the top cover 12' is capable of 'prevent[ing] radio frequency
signals from entering and exiting' the grid partition bottom member 14, nor
would such a configuration be beneficial for an RF module of an aircraft,
which operates using the RF signals received by the RF module.") (citing
Rodriguez, 1 :27-35) (alteration by Appellant). Rather, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Rodriguez' disclosure of a single cover 12'
configured to cover multiple partitions 14' teaches "a single removable
cover for accessing the plurality of isolation chambers, the single removable
cover configured to cover all of the plurality of isolation chambers," as
recited in claim 1. See Rodriguez, Fig. 2; Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Rodriguez,
Fig. 2 (chambers/partitions 14', cover 12')).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred by relying on
Rodriguez' single cover because of its purported benefits in its aviation
context. App. Br. 14. "A reference may be read for all that it teaches,
including uses beyond its primary purpose." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322,
1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that
suggest the Examiner's combination of Azimuth and Rodriguez requires
bodily incorporation of Rodriguez' single cover (which, according to
Appellant, does not prevent transmission of RF signals) in lieu of Azimuth's
removable covers for each isolation chamber in a case that is configured to
prevent radio frequency signals from entering and exiting the isolation
chambers. See id. at 1332 ("It is well-established that a determination of
6
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an
actual, physical substitution of elements.") ( citing In re Keller, 642 F .2d at
425 ("The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference.")).
(2) Combining Azimuth and Rodriguez
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding that it would have been
obvious to combine Azimuth's and Rodriguez' teachings. See App. Br. 20-
22; Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, Appellant argues "it would not [have]
be[en] obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to replace an isolation
cover of Azimuth with the top cover ... disclosed in Rodriguez that does not
provide any RF isolation capabilities." App. Br. 21. Appellant argues
Rodriguez, in fact, teaches away from Azimuth's RF isolation enclosure
because Rodriguez encourages the transmission of RF signals. Id. at 15
(citing Rodriguez, 3:32-37, Fig. 1). Appellant also argues that adding
Rodriguez' cover to Azimuth's case would render Azimuth inoperable for its
intended purpose because Rodriguez' cover is designed to allow the
transmission of RF signals. App. Br. 21 ( citing Azimuth, 1; Rodriguez,
3:38--49). Appellant also argues that there would have been no need to
modify Azimuth with Rodriguez' teachings as Azimuth already provides an
RF-interference free environment. App. Br. 21-22.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have
"recognize[ d] that a single cover may be used to cover all the chambers for a
simpler mechanical structure at lower cost." Ans. 22-23; see Final Act. 4.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
7
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
combine Azimuth's and Rodriguez' teachings to teach or suggest using a
single cover for claim 1 's case. Ans. 22-23.
We find the Examiner provides "articulated reasoning [(i.e., a simpler
mechanical structure at lower cost)] with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 20-22), which are
premised on Rodriguez' cover allowing the transmission of RF signals, are
inapposite as the Examiner relies on Rodriguez only for teaching a single
cover to cover multiple chambers, in lieu of Azimuth's separate cover for
each chamber - Azimuth's teaching of RF isolation is unchanged by the
Examiner's combination. Using a single cover in lieu of multiple covers is a
predictable design variation that would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("When a work is available in one
field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt
variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability."). Furthermore, Azimuth's and Rodriguez' teachings do not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage using a single cover in lieu of
multiple covers, and thus, do not teach away from the Examiner's findings.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding to teach
away, a reference must "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage"
investigation into the claimed solution). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by Appellant's arguments that the Examiner errs.
8
Appeal 2017-010318
Application 14/ 186,373
CONCLUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner's rejections of independent
claims 11 and 16, for which Appellant (see App. Br. 15-20) provides the
same or similar arguments. We also sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections
of claims 3-10, 12-15, 17, and 18, as Appellant does not provide additional
arguments for their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-18.
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
9