Ex Parte Penisoara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13203298 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/203,298 08/25/2011
34814 7590 09/23/2016
NXP-LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
Austin, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nicusor Penisoara
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.
MT11209ES 6207
EXAMINER
YACOB, SISAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICUSOR PENISOARA, RAZV AN-MIHAI LUCACI,
and ADRIAN-IOAN NISTOR1
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 14, and 15, which are each independent. Claims 2-13 and 16-21
are indicated as cancelled. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc. See Appeal Brief 1.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
Aug. 25, 2011 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
Apr. 23, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief("Appeal Br.") filed Dec. 12, 2014; (4)
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 8, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 8, 2015.
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
BACKGROUND
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to a method
and a radio frequency control system that selects at least one device to be
controlled by a radio frequency controller device. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for selecting at least one device to be controlled
by a radio frequency (RF) controller device, the method
compnsmg:
determining a first link quality value for a first device
associated with a first group of a plurality of groups, each group
of the plurality of groups having one or more controllable
devices;
determining a second link quality value for a second
device associated with a second group of the plurality of groups;
calculating a first proximity factor for the first group based
at least partly on the determined first link quality value;
calculating a second proximity factor for the second group
based at least partly on the determined second link quality value;
comparing the first and second proximity factors;
based on the comparing, selecting the first group to be
controlled by the RF controller device over the second group in
response to the first group having a more favourable proximity
factor than the second group; and
subsequent to selecting the first group, selecting a different
group of the plurality of groups in response to the different group
having a proximity factor that is more favourable by more than
a threshold amount than the proximity factor of the currently
selected first group.
2
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
Claim 14 is reproduced below with disputed limitation
emphasized:
14. An integrated circuit for a radio frequency (RF) controller
device comprising:
signal processing logic arranged to arrange a plurality of
controllable devices into a plurality of groups, determine a first
link quality value for a first controllable device associated with a
first group of the plurality of groups, determine a second link
quality value for a second controllable device associated with a
second group of the plurality of groups, calculate a first
proximity factor for the first group based at least partly on the
determined first link quality value, calculate a second proximity
factor for the second group based on the determined second link
quality value, compare the first and second proximity factors,
and select the group of controllable devices having a more
favourable proximity factor to be controlled by the RF controller
device.
Claim 15 is reproduced below with disputed limitation
emphasized:
15. A radio frequency (RF) control system comprising:
a plurality of controllable devices; and
an RF controller device, the RF controller device
comprising RF circuitry arranged to transmit and receive RF
signals to and from controllable devices, and signal processing
logic operably coupled to the RF circuitry;
wherein the signal processing logic is arranged to arrange
the plurality of controllable devices into a plurality of groups,
determine link quality value for at least one controllable device
associated with the plurality of groups, calculate a proximity
factor for the plurality of groups of controllable devices based at
least partly on the determined at least one link quality value
compare proximity factors for the plurality of groups, and select
the group of controllable devices comprising a favourable
proximity factor to be controlled by the RF controller device.
3
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
REFERENCES
The art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal:
de Clerq et al. US 2005/0094610 Al
("de Clerq")
Camp et al. ("Camp") US 2008/0238661 Al
Nakano et al. US 2009/0195407 Al
("Nakano")
REJECTIONS
May 5, 2005
Oct. 2, 2008
Aug. 6, 2009
Claims 1and14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Camp. Final Act. 6.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over de Clerq in view of Nakano. Final Act. 3.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by the Appellants. We have not considered other possible
issues that have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not
before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Camp discloses "selecting a
different group of the plurality of groups in response to the different group
having a proximity factor that is more favourable by more than a threshold
amount than the proximity factor of the currently selected first group," as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Camp discloses "signal
processing logic arranged to arrange a plurality of controllable devices into
a plurality of groups," as recited in claim 14?
4
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of de Clerq
and Nakano teaches or suggests "wherein the signal processing logic is
arranged to arrange the plurality of controllable devices into a plurality of
groups," as recited in claim 15?
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 1
The Examiner relies on Camp to disclose "selecting a different group
of the plurality of groups in response to the different group having a
proximity factor that is more favourable by more than a threshold amount
than the proximity factor of the currently selected first group," as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 8-9. In particular, the Examiner finds that in Camp,
when device 10 moves through house 52 the signal strength from devices A,
B, and C change accordingly, and the signal characteristics from each
responding device and the corresponding transmission power levels are
compared with previously acquired reference measurements, which meet the
claimed more than a threshold amount. Ans. 3-5 (citing Camp i-fi-191-95 and
Figs. 8A and 8B).
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because Camp fails to disclose
the use of a threshold in the selection of a group because "Camp fails to
teach that a correlation of signal strengths for a different location must be
more favorable than a correlation of signal strengths for a current location Qy_
a threshold amount." Appeal Br. 6.
We agree with Appellants' arguments that the Examiner's findings do
not disclose all of the features of claim 1. Specifically, we find the
Examiner fails to establish that Camp discloses "a proximity factor that is
5
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
more favourable by more than a threshold amount," as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1.
35 U.S. C. § 102: Claim 14
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own,
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Appellants contend that Camp does not disclose the claimed arranging
of a plurality of controllable devices into a plurality of groups because the
portion of Camp cited by the Examiner merely shows appliances placed in
rooms. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants state that "[ n ]either the
figure, nor Camp's description of the figure, teaches the arrangement of the
controllable devices into groups by signal processing logic." Appeal Br. 7
(citing Camp Fig. 5 and i-f 77).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that Camp discloses the arrangement of controllable
devices into groups. Indeed, mobile telephone 10 of Camp may arrange a
group of controllable devices just by electing to control the devices, e.g., by
electing to tum on one or more devices within a room. Ans. 7 (citing Camp
Fig. 5 and i-f 7 5). Because Camp discloses controllable devices located in
6
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
multiple rooms (i.e., living room, bedroom, kitchen) we also agree that
Camp's mobile telephone 10 may arrange a plurality of groups by arranging
a different group for each room. 3 Id. We also agree with the Examiner's
finding that Camp discloses arranging devices into a plurality of groups
using signal processing logic. Final Act. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 14.
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 15
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With
respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that de Clerq does not teach or suggest the
claimed arranging of a plurality of controllable devices into a plurality of
groups because "[i]n both figures [1 and 4] a controlling device (10) is
shown, but neither the figures nor the descriptions of the figures teach that
the controlling device has arranged the appliances into groups as recited in
claim 15." Appeal Br. 8.
3 To the extent claims 14 and 15 are enabled, we note Appellants'
Specification discloses arranging controllable devices into groups by
associating controllable devices with their locations (e.g., devices 110 and
120 in first location 160 are associated with a first group (Room 1 ), and
devices 130 and 140 in second location 170 are associated with a second
group (Room 2)). Spec. 3:37--4:3. Camp and de Clerq similarly disclose
controllable devices associated with the rooms in which they are located.
See Camp, Fig. 5; see also de Clerq, Fig. 1.
7
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that de Clerq teaches the arrangement of controllable
devices into groups. For example, controlling device 10 of de Clerq may
arrange a group of controllable devices, such as signaling devices 14a--d, by
electing to control the devices. Ans. 8 (citing de Clerq Fig. 1 and ifif30-31 ).
The Examiner also finds that controlling device 10 may arrange controllable
devices into a plurality of groups (e.g., multiple control environments 100,
120, and 130). Ans. 8 (citing de Clerq Fig. 4 and iii! 34--35).
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that de Clerq suggests
using signal processing logic. Final Act. 4 (citing de Clerq's microprocessor
24 of Fig. 2 and iii! 17-18).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 15. 4,5
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
\~1hether claims 14 and 15 recite sufficient strt1cture or, instead, should be
interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (pre-AIA)
as means-plus-function limitations. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If appropriately interpreted as mean-plus-
function elements, the Examiner may wish to further consider whether
Appellants' Specification adequately discloses a structure for performing the
recited function. For example, the corresponding structure of a means-plus-
function limitation must be more than simply a general-purpose computer or
microprocessor to avoid pure functional claiming. Aristocrat Techs. Aust!.
Pty Ltd. v. Int'! Game Tech., 521F.3d1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The
Specification must disclose the "algorithm in any understandable terms
including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any
other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV
Group Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citations
omitted).
5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may also wish to consider
whether claims 14 and 15 enable signal processing logic arranged to arrange
a plurality of controllable devices into a plurality of groups, i.e., to actually
8
Appeal2015-006764
Application 13/203,298
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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-IN-PART
arrange the controllable devices into a plurality of groups instead of simply
associating the devices with predetermined groups such as devices located in
Room 1 or devices located in Room 2.
9