Ex Parte Seppinen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 25, 2013

10606284 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2013)

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.
10/606,284 06/25/2003 Pauli Seppinen 944-003.151-1 3300
10945 7590 06/25/2013
NOKIA CORPORATION
c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP
Building Five, Bradford Green
755 Main Street, PO Box 224
Monroe, CT 06468
EXAMINER
YUN, EUGENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PAULI SEPPINEN and AARNO PARSSINEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-004196
Application 10/606,284
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 19, which are reproduced below with emphases
added:

1. A dual mode transceiver, comprising:

a mixer; and

a controller configured to adapt the transceiver to
operate in two modes operating either as a radio frequency tag
reader or as a Bluetooth transceiver by changing reception and
transmission capabilities of the transceiver, wherein the
controller is configured to control the mixer to operate in both
of the two modes, wherein the mixer is useable for said
transceiver operating as said radio frequency tag reader or as
said Bluetooth transceiver.
19. The dual mode transceiver of claim 1, wherein said
controller is configured to control the mixer to operate with a
different gain and bias current according to mode of operation
as a radio frequency tag reader or as a Bluetooth transceiver.

Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

3
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bridgelall (US 6,717,516 B2) in view of Gunnarsson (WO
01/39103 A1).1 Ans. 7-14.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br.3 -5) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bridgelall and Gunnarsson for
numerous reasons, including:
(1) Gunnarsson fails to teach controlling a mixer to operate in
both a radio frequency tag reading mode and a Bluetooth transceiver
mode, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4-6);
(2) Gunnarsson’s “mixer (27) is not usable for a transceiver
operating as a radio frequency tag reader or as a Bluetooth transceiver,
but is only usable for one of those two modes” (App. Br. 6); and

1 Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments for claims 5-11
and 14, and instead rely on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 6-7). Appellants’ arguments are drawn to the feature recited in
independent claim 1 of “wherein the controller is configured to control the
mixer to operate in both of the two modes, wherein the mixer is useable for
said transceiver operating as said radio frequency tag reader or as said
Bluetooth transceiver,” and as similarly recited in remaining independent
claims 5, 10, 11, and 14. In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as
representative of the group of claims 1-18.
Appellants present separate arguments as to the patentability of claims
19-22 (App. Br. 6-7).
Accordingly, we will decide this appeal on the basis of claims 1 and
19-22.
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

4
(3) with regard to claims 2-4 and 12-22, Appellants contend
that Gunnarsson fails to teach a controller configured to control the
mixer to operate with a different gain and bias current based on the
mode of operation (i.e., radio frequency tag reader mode or Bluetooth
transceiver mode) (App. Br. 6-7).2
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bridgelall
and Gunnarsson because the combination fails to teach or suggest the
limitation “wherein the controller is configured to control the mixer to
operate in both of the two modes, wherein the mixer is useable for said
transceiver operating as said radio frequency tag reader or as said Bluetooth
transceiver,” as recited in representative claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 19-22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bridgelall
and Gunnarsson because the combination fails to teach or suggest
controlling the mixer to operate with “different gain and bias current”
depending on the mode of operation, as set forth in each of claims 19-22?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contention in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-8) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.
2-3) that the Examiner has erred. Because we conclude that Bridgelall alone

2 Notably, only claims 19-22 actually contain the argued feature relating to
“a different gain and bias current.”
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

5
teaches or suggests all of the limitations at issue in representative claim 1,
and the combination of Bridgelall and Gunnarsson teaches or suggests the
gain and bias limitations recited in claims 19-22, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-22.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner regarding
Bridgelall, and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-14). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of Bridgelall and Gunnarsson, as well as certain
ones of Appellants’ arguments as follows.
With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 7-8) that Bridgelall (Figure 2) teaches a dual mode transceiver
including a mixer and a controller operable in either a radio frequency tag
reader mode or a Bluetooth transceiver mode. Bridgelall’s host interface
processor 60 (i.e., the “controller” recited in claim 1) operates with register
file 52 to control bit stream processor 50 (i.e., the “mixer” recited in claim 1)
to operate in either a radio frequency tag reader mode using RFID interface
44 and modem 48, or in a Bluetooth transceiver mode using Bluetooth
interface 42 and modem 46 (see Fig. 2 and accompanying description found
at col. 5, ll. 1-55).
With regard to the limitations at issue in claims 19-22 concerning the
use of different gain and bias currents for the two different modes of
operation, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 13-14, citing p. 5, l. 22 to p. 6,
l. 7 of Gunnarsson; Ans. 15, “In Response to (C),” citing p. 6, ll. 15-20 of
Gunnarsson) that Gunnarsson operates in accordance with known Bluetooth
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

6
standards at a high data rate and is capable of a power-lean rest position (i.e.,
a low gain and bias current operation mode). In addition, we find that
Bridgelall (col. 5, l. 46 to col. 6, l. 9) discloses controlling the phase and
magnitude of (i) a Bluetooth signal which is modulated to control phase and
amplitude using baseband modulator 51 (Fig. 4), and (ii) an RFID tag signal
which is transceived using power amplifier 88, oscillator 82, and pulse
shaper 86 (Fig. 3), where a single baseband processor and host interface
processor (col. 5, ll. 29-31) control the baseband modulator 51to be
“configurable according to the type of signal being used, such as a selected
version of an RFID signal, or a Bluetooth signal” (col. 6, ll. 63-65).
One of ordinary skill in the art of radio frequency transceivers at the
time of Appellants’ claimed invention would understand that different gain
and bias currents could be used to beneficially transceive different types of
signals. Bridgelall discloses controlling the RFID and Bluetooth RF
modules to transceiver using a “[c]onfigurable bit-stream processor 50,
which may be implemented in a programmed field programmable logic
array [] arranged to process the serial bit streams for both the Bluetooth and
RFID communications” (col. 7, ll. 4-7). It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art that the two different configurations of
Bridgelall’s configurable bit-stream processor 50, relating to either the
Bluetooth mode or RFID mode, would necessarily include gain and bias
current.
Appellants’ Contentions (1) and (2) are not persuasive inasmuch as
Bridgelall alone teaches or suggests the limitations of representative claim 1,
making Gunnarsson superfluous. A disclosure that anticipates under
35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

7
for "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." Jones V. Hardy, 727 F.2d
1524, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794
(CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402 (CCPA 1974).
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that since Bridgelall
reasonably teaches or suggests controlling a mixer to operate both radio
frequency tag reader and Bluetooth modes as shown in Figures 2-4,
Gunnarsson is not actually necessary for a proper rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of representative claim 1, as Bridgelall teaches or suggests all that is
claimed. The Board may rely on less than all of the references applied by
the Examiner in an obviousness rationale without designating it as a new
ground of rejection. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961); In re
Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966). Likewise, Appellants’
Contention (3) concerning Gunnarsson is not persuasive for similar reasons.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (i)
representative claim 1, and claims 2-18 grouped therewith, and (ii) claims
19-22.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bridgelall
and Gunnarsson because Gunnarsson alone teaches or suggests the
limitations recited in representative claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19-22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Bridgelall
and Gunnarsson because (i) Bridgelall alone teaches or suggests the
limitations of claims 19-22, thus Gunnarsson is not required for the
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549284

8
combination, and (ii) Gunnarsson teaches or suggests using different gain
and bias currents for the different modes of operation as recited in claims
19-22.

DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 is 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

Vsh