Ex Parte Riveiro et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201411536539 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUAN CARLOS RIVEIRO, NILS HAKAN FOUREN, and JONATHAN EPHRAIM DAVID HURWITZ ____________ Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before LEE E. BARRETT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, and 13–27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The invention relates to simultaneously communicating data using two wideband frequency ranges over a power line. Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 2 Independent claim 1 is representative. 1. A communication device comprising: a coupling configured to communicate data over a power line, a first part of the data being communicated over the power line using a first wide band frequency range and a second part of the data being communicated over a same portion of the power line using a second wide band frequency range separate from the first wide band frequency range, the first part of the data being independent from the second part of the data; first logic configured to process the first part of the data; and second logic configured to process the second part of the data. THE PRIOR ART Berkman et al. (Berkman) 2007/0002771 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 (filed June 21, 2005) Abraham et al. (Abraham) 2006/0049693 A1 Mar. 9, 2006 (filed Jan. 5, 2005) Gidge et al. (Gidge) 2006/0097574 A1 May 11, 2006 Lo 2002/0026528 A1 Feb. 28, 2002 Goodman et al. (Goodman) 5,929,896 July 27, 1999 White, II et al. (White) 2004/0113757 A1 June 17, 2004 THE REJECTIONS Claims 2, 9, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.1 Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Berkman. 1 The statement of the rejection includes claim 3, but claim 3 has been canceled. Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 3 Claims 4, 5, 16–18, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkman in view of Abraham. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkman in view of Abraham and Goodman. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkman in view of Lo. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkman in view of White. Claims 20–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berkman in view of Gidge. ANALYSIS Indefiniteness The Examiner concludes that claims 2, 9, and 17 are indefinite because “[t]he use of [the terms] ‘communication standard, first standard, second standard Homeplug 1.0/1.1 standards’ can change over time, thus, it is unclear to have the scope of a claim to change over time.” (Emphasis omitted.) Ans. 5. Appellants argue that breadth is not indefiniteness and, moreover, the standards cited do not change over time. Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 2–3. Claims 2, 9, and 17 broadly recite “first communication standard,” “second communication standard,” “a communication standard,” and “different communication standards.” The claim terms are broad, not indefinite. The fact that specific standards disclosed in the Specification may change does not make the claims indefinite. Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 4 Original claim 3 recited a set of standards “consisting of the Homeplug 1.0/1.1 standard, the Homeplug AV standard, the CEPCA standard and the Digital Home Standard.” While the Examiner may have had a point that the scope of this claim is indefinite because standards can change, the issue is moot since claim 3 has been canceled. The rejection of claims 2, 9, and 17 is reversed. Anticipation Appellants argue that Berkman does not teach “a first part of the data being communicated over the power line using a first wide band frequency range and a second part of the data being communicated over a same portion of the power line using a second wide band frequency range,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 19. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. The Examiner’s position is: Berkman discloses . . . a first part of the data (see first frequency band cited, [0057] . . .) being communicated over the power line using a first frequency range (see first frequency band or LV band, 4-21 Mhz cited, [0057]) and a second part of the data (see bottom half of [0057] second frequency range or MV Band “30-50 Mhz” . . .) being communicated over a same portion of (see [0160] both frequency ranges or “bands” may be communicated over the same power line, see “both the LV band (4-21 Mhz) and the MV band (30-50 Mhz) may be used for communications over the MV and LV power lines” . . . or in other words “a same portion” because both portion MV portion or LV portion can carry both frequencies concurrently which contain the first and second parts of the data) the power line using a second wide band frequency range (see second frequency band cited, 30-50 Mhz, [0057]) separate from the first wide band frequency range . . . Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 5 (Bolding omitted.) Ans. 6–7. “MV” and “LV” refer to the medium voltage and low voltage power lines in Figure 1 of Berkman. Appellants argue that paragraphs 57 and 160 of Berkman teach frequency translation of received data prior to transmission on a particular power line so “each power line section (MV and LV) is actually only able to transmit frequencies within a single frequency range.” Appeal Br. 13. Thus, it is argued, Berkman teaches away from being able to transmit two different frequency ranges across the same portion of a power line. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that paragraph 57 states that the LV frequency band must be up-converted, which “necessarily means that the LV frequency band cannot be transmitted on the MV power line.” Reply Br. 6. With respect to paragraph 160, Appellants argue: Berkman simply teaches that two different MV modems can be used, each operating in a different frequency band, but the MV signal conditioner would need to up-convert (frequency translate) any signals coming from an MV modem operating in the LV band prior to transmitting those signals onto the MV power line. If the LV band could actually be transmitted on the MV power line, there would be no need for the ‘frequency translation circuitry’ in Berkman. Reply Br. 7. Paragraph 57 of Berkman describes that the MV signal conditioner of Figure 4 “may provide” frequency translation. Thus, frequency translation is optional. In the disclosed embodiment of paragraph 57, the frequency translation is from the 4–21 MHz band of the LV power line to the higher frequency band of 30–50 MHz of the MV power line, or from the 4–30 MHz band to the 24–50 MHz band. Paragraph 57 says nothing about both frequency bands being used on the LV or MV portions. Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 6 However, paragraph 159 describes that “alternate embodiments may use multiple modems in the LV interface and/or multiple modems in the MV interface.” Berkman, para. 159. Paragraph 160 describes that the MV interface may have separate modems for transmitting and receiving through the MV power line where each modem may operate at a separate frequency band: “Thus, the first MV modem may communicate in the 30-50 Mhz band and the second MV modem may communicate in the 4-21 Mhz or 4-30 Mhz band.” Berkman, para. 160. Thus, Berkman discloses simultaneously communicating over the same portion of a power line (the MV power line) using first and second wide band frequency ranges. Berkman also discloses that “[i]n an alternate embodiment, both MV modems (and LV modems) may transmit and receive data.” Berkman, para. 160. Thus, Berkman teaches transmitting over two wide band frequency ranges and receiving over two wide band frequency ranges. The fact that Berkman teaches that the separate frequency ranges “may” be frequency translated does not affect the teaching of two separate frequency ranges on the same portion of the power line. The term “may” indicates that frequency translation is optional. To the extent Appellant implicitly argue that the two frequency ranges would be up-converted to fall in the same frequency range, we disagree. Berkman expressly discloses that “the first MV modem may communicate in the 30-50 Mhz band and the second MV modem may communicate in the 4-21 Mhz or 4-30 Mhz band.” Berkman, para. 160. In addition, as noted by the Examiner, Berkman discloses that “if there is enough attenuation of the data signals by the distribution transformers (so that LV signals do not bleed through the transformer and be Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 7 received by either of the MV modems), both the LV band and the MV band may be used for communications over the MV and LV power lines.” (Emphasis added.) Berkman, para. 160. This further teaches using both frequency bands on both power lines. Still further, paragraph 36 of Berkman discloses communicating different signals over the MV power line (e.g., repeating backhaul communications and repeating signals between bypass devices (BDs)) using orthogonal transmission schemes, such as “a different (orthogonal) frequency band,” which also teaches different frequency bands over the same portion of the MV power line. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 19 over Berkman is affirmed. Obviousness Appellants argue that Berkman does not teach “a first part of the data being communicated over the power line using a first wide band frequency range and a second part of the data being communicated over a same portion of the power line using a second wide band frequency range,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added) and similarly recited in claim 19. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. It is argued that none of Abraham, Lo, and White cures the deficiencies of Berkman as to independent claim 1 and, thus, the rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 9, and 15 must be reversed. Appeal Br. 15–16 and 18–19. Because we find that the limitation at issue in claim 1 is taught by Berkman, the rejections of claims 4, 5, 9, and 15 are affirmed. Appellants argue that the combinations of Berkman and Abraham, or Berkman, Abraham, and Goodman, do not teach “a second communication Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 8 node configured to communicate with the first communication node over a power line by simultaneously using both the first wide band frequency range and the second wide band frequency range over a same portion of the power line,” as recited in claim 16. Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 4. We find that this limitation is taught by Berkman for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1. The rejections of claims 16–18 and 25–27 are affirmed. Appellants argue that the combination of Berkman and Gidge does not teach “combining the first signal [within a first wide band frequency range] and the second signal [within a second wide band frequency range] to generate a combined signal; and sending the combined signal over a same portion of a power line,” as recited in independent claim 20 (emphasis added) and similarly recited in independent claim 21. Appeal Br. 19–20; Reply Br. 4. It is argued that “Berkmam [sic] does not teach or suggest that two different wide band frequency ranges can be transmitted simultaneously over the ‘same portion’ of a power line.” Appeal Br. 20. We find that sending two wide band signals over the same portion of a power line is taught by Berkman for the reasons stated with respect to independent claim 1. The rejection of claims 20–24 is affirmed. DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, and 13–27 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2012-008465 Application 11/536,539 9 tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation