Ex Parte Seibert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13190800 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/190,800 07/26/2011 Cristina Seibert SILS/0037US (SSN-166) 2862
103346 7590 12/16/2016
Artegis Law Group, LLP/Silver Spring
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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):
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
mmccauley @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRISTINA SEIBERT and EDWIN SHEARER
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,8001
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, WILLIAM M. FINK, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3—8, 10—15, and 17—25, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to communication modes in “multimode signal
acquisition.” Abstract.
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 22 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Silver Spring
Networks, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
1. A system for transmitting and receiving signals over a
network, the system comprising:
a receiver for multimode signal acquisition, the receiver
including:
a filter module that filters a received signal to generate a
filtered signal;
a sampling module that samples the filtered signal to
generate a sampled signal;
a first analysis module that analyzes at least one
characteristic of the sampled signal associated with a first
predetermined frequency, the first analysis module generates a
first output signal associated with the at least one characteristic;
a second analysis module that analyzes the at least one
characteristic of the sampled signal associated with a second
predetermined frequency, the second analysis module generates
a second output signal associated with the at least one
characteristic, wherein the first predetermined frequency is
different than the second predetermined frequency; and
a classification module that classifies the received signal
into one of a plurality of different communication modes based
on the first output from the first analysis module and the second
output from the second analysis module.
22. A method of transmitting a plurality of signals of different
communication modes to, and receiving the plurality of signals
at, a receiver, the method comprising:
transmitting a first signal from a first transmitter to the
receiver, the first signal being transmitted according to a first
communication mode; and
transmitting a second signal from a second transmitter to
the receiver, the second signal being transmitted according to a
second communication mode,
wherein the first communication mode is different than the
second communication mode, and wherein the first signal and
the second signal are transmitted to the receiver without a
common initial communication mode.
2
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5—10, 12—16, 18—19, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dubuc et al. (US
7,428,270 Bl; Sept. 23, 2008) and Brandsma et al. (US 2011/0109811 Al;
May 12, 2011). Final Act. 4.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Dubuc, Brandsma, and Swanson (US
2005/0038942 Al; Feb. 17, 2005). Final Act. 10.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Dubuc, Brandsma, and Filipovic et al. (US
2011/0085589 Al; Apr. 14,2011). Final Act. 11.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Dubuc, Brandsma, and Shi et al. (US 2010/0069070 Al;
Mar. 18,2010). Final Act. 12.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Dubuc and
Brandsma teaches or suggests “a classification module that classifies the
received signal into one of a plurality of different communication modes
based on the first output from the first analysis module and the second
output from the second analysis module,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Dubuc teaches or suggests “the
first signal and the second signal are transmitted to the receiver without a
common initial communication mode,” as recited in claim 22?
3
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—8, 10—15, 17—21, and 25
Claim 1 recites “a classification module that classifies the received
signal into one of a plurality of different communication modes based on the
first output from the first analysis module and the second output from the
second analysis module.” Independent claims 8 and 15 recite commensurate
limitations.
According to the Examiner, “Dubu[c] disclose[s] the receiver for
classifying the specific modulation type of received signals comprise a
plurality of channels ... for monitoring the radio communication spectrum
based on specific characteristics of carrier frequency of received signals,”
but “does not explicitly disclose the second analysis module wherein the first
predetermined frequency is different than the second predetermined
frequency.” Final Act. 6. However, the Examiner finds “it is well known in
[the] art to apply parallel process[ing] to further enhance the process time”
and Brandsma discloses an example of “parallel processing of channels in
wideband multi-channel” communications. Id.
Appellants contend that “Brandsma discloses a multi-channel receiver
for a digital television system” in which “each receiving unit. . . analyzes
and detects a separate television channel” and therefore Brandsma is “silent
about determining a single communication mode based on first output and
second output received from two different receiving units.” App. Br. 12.
Appellants’ argument, however, is not commensurate with the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner relies on Dubuc for the “classifying”
limitation, not Brandsma. Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4. By focusing solely on
Brandsma, Appellants have not sufficiently addressed the Examiner’s
4
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
proposed combination of Dubuc and Brandsma. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“But one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims 3—7, 10-14, 17—21, and 25,
which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 13;
37C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 22—24
Independent claim 22 recites “the first signal and the second signal are
transmitted to the receiver without a common initial communication mode.”
“During examination, the examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing aprima facie case of obviousness.” In re Kumar, 418 F.3d
1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “The prima facie case is a procedural tool, and
requires that the examiner initially produce evidence sufficient to support a
ruling of obviousness; thereafter the burden shifts to the applicant to come
forward with evidence or argument in rebuttal.” Id. The question here is
what evidence the Examiner needs to show in order to make a prima facie
case that a prior art reference teaches or suggests a negative limitation (i.e.,
“without a common initial communication mode”).
Appellants contend Dubuc “does not discuss anything related to initial
communication modes used by such signals.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner,
on the other hand, finds that in Dubuc, “modulation formation is catagorized
[sic] within the set of specific modulations thus implicitly disclose the
received signals comprising a plurality of channels are withouot [sic]
common initial communications modes before modulation type is defined by
5
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
the modulation classification section.” Ans. 5 (citing Dubuc Fig. 1, 8:51—59,
17:1—52). Appellants contend “none of the citations provided by the
Examiner discuss initial communication modes or indicate that the signals
being analyzed lack a common initial communication mode” and therefore
“the Examiner has not provided any evidence that such teachings are
inherent in the portions of Dubuc cited.” Reply Br. 8.
We agree with Appellants that Dubuc does not explicitly discuss
“initial communication modes.” However, we agree with the Examiner that
Dubuc’s teaching of categorizing signal modulation formats (see Dubuc
8:51—59) is sufficient to create a prima facie case that Dubuc teaches or
suggests the categorized signals were transmitted to the receiver with
different communication modes, i.e., “without a common initial
communication mode.”
The burden of production switches to Appellants. Appellants have
not offered any evidence to rebut the Examiner’s finding or show that Dubuc
would use a common initial communication mode. For example, Appellants
have not provided any evidence that the state of the art at the time of the
invention used a common initial communication mode. Thus, given the
limited record before us, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 22, and dependent claims 23 and 24, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 14; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2016-000752
Application 13/190,800
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3—8, 10-15, and 17—25.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7