Ex Parte Shim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2013

11404984 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BO-WOOK SHIM and HONG-WOO LEE
____________

Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b), and
we heard the appeal on January 11, 2013. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention performs RF calibration in a mobile phone
using a switching jig selecting between wireless paths. See generally
Abstract. Claim 6 is illustrative:
6. A method of performing Radio Frequency (RF) calibration in a
diversity mobile communication terminal using a switching jig for
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

2
selectively connecting a first wireless path and a second wireless path to a
base station controller simulator, the diversity mobile communication
terminal including the first and second wireless paths for transmitting and
receiving RF signals, the method comprising:
a first step of performing RF calibration of the first wireless path in a
state in which the first wireless path and the base station controller simulator
are connected to each other;
a second step of controlling the switching jig so that the second
wireless path and the base station controller simulator are connected to each
other; and
a third step of performing RF calibration of the second wireless path,
wherein performing RF calibration comprises correcting differences
in RF characteristics of components of the diversity mobile communication
terminal.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alvarez (US 5,805,667; issued Sept. 8, 1998) and
Mizuguchi (US 6,917,786 B1; issued July 12, 2005). Ans. 7-9.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Alvarez, Mizuguchi, and Miller (US 2005/0174131 A1;
pub. Aug. 11, 2005). Ans. 9-12.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 29,
2010 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 28, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed August 30, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alvarez, Mizuguchi, Miller, and Olgaard (US 7,363,188
B1; issued Apr. 22, 2008; filed Dec. 3, 2004). Ans. 12-13.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ALVAREZ AND MIZUGUCHI
Regarding representative claim 6, the Examiner finds that Alvarez’s
system in Figure 2 performs RF calibration in a diversity mobile
communication terminal including (1) using a switching jig (RF switch 20)
for selectively connecting a first wireless path (antenna 38 to antenna 58)
and a second wireless path (antenna 40 to antenna 58) to a base station
controller simulator (base 30), and (2) performing RF calibration on both
paths. Ans. 7, 14-16. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Alvarez’s
calibration does not correct differences in RF characteristics of the
terminal’s components, the Examiner cites Mizuguchi as teaching this
feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 7-8, 16.
Appellants argue that not only does Alvarez not perform RF
calibration, there is no reason to incorporate Mizuguchi’s calibration into
Alvarez as the Examiner proposes. Ans. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-6. Appellants
add that Alvarez’s RF switch does not selectively connect different wireless
paths between a diversity mobile terminal and a base station controller
simulator. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 7-8.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 by
finding that Alvarez and Mizuguchi collectively would have taught or
suggested performing RF calibration in a diversity mobile communication
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

4
terminal using a switching jig for selectively connecting first and second
wireless paths to a base station controller simulator, and performing RF
calibration on both paths?
(2) Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation in claim 6, “RF
calibration.” Since the term “calibration” is not defined in the Specification,
we construe it with its plain meaning, namely “[d]etermining the degree to
which the response of a circuit or device corresponds to desired
performance.”2 Given this definition, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14)
that Alvarez’s range testing involves one type of RF calibration, for
Alvarez’s system determines the degree to which the cordless telephone
corresponds to a predetermined operating range standard by evaluating its
performance via different attenuation levels that simulate physical distance
between base 30 and handset 50. See Alvarez, col. 4, l. 35 – col. 7, l. 13;
Figs. 2-3. Appellants’ contention that Alvarez does not perform RF
calibration (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-6) is not commensurate with the
scope of the term.
Although claim 6 limits RF calibration to comprise correcting
differences in the terminal components’ RF characteristics, the Examiner did
not rely on Alvarez for that particular type of calibration, but rather

2 Stan Gibilisco, THE ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS 95 (8th ed.
2001).
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

5
Mizuguchi. Ans. 7-8, 16. Mizuguchi’s calibration scheme corrects for
amplitude fluctuations and phase shifts due to variations in receiver
amplifier elements which can cause unexpected directivity pattern
differences. Mizuguchi, col. 1, l. 56 – col. 2, l. 4; col. 9, ll. 54-65; Fig. 3.
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to apply Mizuguchi’s
RF calibration technique to Alvarez’s failed mobile terminals to improve
communication quality. Ans. 14-15. We see no error in this reasoning, for
while Alvarez determines device transmission range, the ultimate goal is for
the handset to effectively wirelessly communicate with the base under
normal operating conditions—a goal that is not achieved when the device
fails. On this record, we see no reason why differences in the terminal
components’ RF characteristics would not at least contribute to terminal
failure upon testing in Alvarez, particularly in light of Mizuguchi as the
Examiner suggests. See Ans. 15. Therefore, enhancing Alvarez’s system to
also correct differences in the terminal’s RF components via calibration in
light of Mizuguchi upon retesting failed terminals is an obvious
enhancement to yield a predictable result—namely improved
communication quality. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s combining the teachings
of Alvarez and Mizuguchi supported by articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s finding that Alvarez uses a
“switching jig” (RF switch 20) for selectively connecting first and second
wireless paths to a base station controller simulator (base 30) as claimed. As
noted above, the Examiner maps the “first wireless path” from antenna 38 in
base test fixture 36 to antenna 58 in handset test fixture 56, and the “second
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

6
wireless path” from antenna 40 in base test fixture 36 to antenna 58. Ans. 7.
Although these paths are not themselves wireless, but rather coupled to the
switch 20 and attenuator 22 via cables, the links from the base test fixture
antennas 38, 40 to their respective antennas 32, 34 in the base are wireless,
as is the link from handset test fixture antenna 58 to handset antenna 52.
Alvarez, col. 5, ll. 19-27; Fig. 2. These links are shown in Alvarez’s test
fixture in Figure 2 reproduced below.

Alvarez’s test fixture in Figure 2

Since the path from handset 50 to base 30 is at least partially wireless
(i.e., between the base and handset test fixture antennas and the
corresponding base and handset antennas), there are two different wireless
paths that are selected via RF switch that are connected to a base station
controller simulator (base 30). Despite having only one antenna 52, we see
no reason why handset 50 cannot be a diversity mobile terminal as
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

7
Appellants contend (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 7-8), for nothing in the claim
precludes the two spatially diverse communication paths the handset uses to
communicate with the base as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 16. Appellants
have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings in this regard. That
Alvarez refers to a diversity coupling antenna 40 in connection with one of
these paths (Alvarez, col. 6, ll. 60-61) only bolsters the Examiner’s position.
To the extent that Appellants contend that Alvarez’s handset is not a
diversity mobile terminal since it only receives RF signals and does not
transmit them (see App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 7-8), this argument is unavailing,
for Alvarez’s handset not only receives signals from the base, but can also
transmit signals to the base. See Alvarez, col. 5, ll. 42-44, 63-67.
Lastly, although Alvarez selects a particular wireless path for testing
and claim 6 requires separately calibrating both the first and second wireless
paths, respectively, we see no error in the Examiner’s position at least to the
extent that calibrating both wireless paths as claimed in lieu of a single path
would have been an obvious variation to yield a predictable result, namely
calibrating both paths instead of just one.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 6, and claims 7-10 not separately argued with
particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ALVAREZ, MIZUGUCHI, AND MILLER
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 5. Ans. 9-12. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately,
Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 6 and
allege that Miller fails to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 10-14;
Appeal 2010-012308
Application 11/404,984

8
Reply Br. 6-9. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the
reasons previously discussed. We add that, unlike method claim 6,
apparatus claim 1 does not require separately calibrating both wireless paths,
but rather recites, in pertinent part, a switching jig that is configured to
selectively connect the paths to a base station controller simulator.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2 and 5 not separately argued with
particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
For the reasons noted above, we also sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4 (Ans. 12-13) since Appellants do not
separately argue these claims apart from their dependence from claim 1.
App. Br. 7.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 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

rwk