Ex Parte TreriseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 201813861575 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/861,575 04/12/2013 23446 7590 08/31/2018 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alan Trerise 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. 25020US02 2725 EXAMINER SERAYDARYAN, HELENA H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN TRERISE 1 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 Technology Center 3600 Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, DANIEL S. SONG, and FREDERICK C. LANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Maxlinear, Inc. (Appellant) is the Applicant as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 1.46 and is identified as the real party in interest Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below from page 5 of the Claims Appendix, 2 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method, comprising: receiving by a signal reception assembly, signals originating from a particular signal source; determining based on processing of the received signals, signal related data, wherein the signal related data comprises parameters pertinent to configuring reception of signals from the particular signal source; obtaining by an electronic device that is coupled to the signal reception assembly, positioning information, wherein: the positioning information comprise one or both of location and directionality related parameters, and the electronic device is coupled to the signal reception assembly such that positioning of the electronic device correlates with positioning of the signal reception assembly; determining based on the positioning information and the signal related data, one or more adjustments to aiming and/or alignment of the signal reception assembly relative to the particular signal source; and providing a visual or graphical presentation, to a user of the signal reception assembly, based on the positioning information and/or the one or more adjustments, during aiming and/or aligning of the signal reception assembly. 2 References to the "Claims Appendix" or "Claims App." are to the Claims Appendix submitted on February 6, 2017, in response to the Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief dated December 6, 2016. The Claims Appendix was submitted with a Summary of Claimed Subject Matter, and, thus, begins on page 5. 2 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 REJECTIONS 3 I. Claims 1-7 and 9-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Webb (US 2005/0248498 Al, pub. Nov. 10, 2005). II. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Webb and Wiedeman (US 6,985,454 Bl, iss. Jan. 10, 2006). DISCUSSION Rejection I-Anticipation Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 24 Appellant groups independent claims 1, 13, and 20 together in contesting this rejection. Appeal Br. 9-14. Appellant does not present any separate arguments for dependent claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 15, 21, and 24 apart from their dependence from one of the independent claims. Id. at 14--30. We select claim 1 for review, and claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 24 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (permitting the 3 The issues raised by Appellant on page 8-9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3--4 of the Reply Brief regarding the Examiner's refusal to enter the Amendment submitted August 17, 2016, and interpretation of claim 13 as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, relate to petitionable matters and not to appealable matters. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ( stating that there are many kinds of decisions made by examiners that are not appealable to the Board when they are not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections of claims) ( citing In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971))); In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894 (CCPA 1967) (holding that the refusal of an examiner to enter an amendment of claims is reviewable by petition under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181, and not by appeal to the Board)). Thus, the relief sought by Appellant should have been presented by a petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 instead ofby appeal to this Board. Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077-78 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 3 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 Board to select a single claim to decide the appeal as to a single ground of rejection of a group of claims argued together). Appellant argues that Webb does not disclose the "providing" step of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-13. More particularly, Appellant argues that paragraphs 13, 32, 45, and 47 of Webb cited by the Examiner in addressing this limitation do not "teach ( or even suggest), providing any visual or graphical representation to the user based on the positioning information and/or the one or more adjustments, and specifically doing so during aiming and/or aligning of the signal reception assembly." Id. at 13; see Final Act. 2-3, 7 (citing Webb ,r,r 13, 32, 45, 47, keypad 804 and display 805, in addressing the "providing" step). According to Appellant: [NJ either the mere inclusion of a display component ( whether within the positioner base 600 itself, or in a PC with which the positioner base 600 may communicate), nor the broad comment that "[k ]eypad 804 and display 805 are utilized in order to control the apparatus" is sufficient to establish that Webb teaches the claim limitation at issue. Appeal Br. 13. In response, the Examiner explains that Webb teaches using the keyboard to input/accept information into the controller/microcomputer and displaying related information and functions on the display to allow the user to control the apparatus, including aligning the receiver for higher quality signal reception. Ans. 8 (citing Webb ,r,r 45, 47). The Examiner points out that Webb also teaches, in the alternative, using a PC to better control the apparatus. Id. (citing Webb ,r,r 13, 47). Webb discloses using keypad 804 and display 805 "in order to control the apparatus." Webb ,r 45. Webb also discloses that a microcontroller in positioner base 600 hosts a control program that reads inputs from keypad 4 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 804 and commands azimuth motor 800 to rotate to a desired azimuth. Id. Other operations accessible from keypad 804 include acquire, stop, stow, and test, functions for receiving channel meta data, searching using an azimuth scan, and searching for a satellite. Id. ,r 47. Any control function that may be activated using keypad 804 may be executed by an onboard or external computer "to control or receive or send data via the apparatus." Id. Thus, keypad 804, or an onboard or external computer, is used to adjust the orientation (directionality) of the apparatus, as well as to acquire satellite position information and other data. Webb does not expressly specify the content of the presentation provided by the display. However, in order to be used with the keypad to control the apparatus, including adjusting the directionality of the apparatus, Webb's display must provide a visual or graphical presentation during the aiming and/or aligning of the apparatus that is useful to the function of adjusting the directionality of the apparatus. In order to be useful in this manner, the presentation provided by Webb's display must be based, in some manner, on the positioning (directionality) of the apparatus and/or the adjustments to such positioning. Thus, Webb's disclosure regarding the operation of the keypad and display is sufficient to satisfy the limitation in claim 1 "providing a visual or graphical presentation, to a user of the signal reception assembly, based on the positioning information and/or the one or more adjustments, during aiming and/or aligning of the signal reception assembly." For the above reasons, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, and 24, which fall with claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 Claims 4-6 and 14 Claims 4 and 14 require that the electronic device be coupled to the signal reception assembly "by docking the electronic device onto a component of the signal reception assembly." Claims App. 6, 7 (emphasis added). The Examiner cited paragraphs 18 and 39 of Webb as disclosing this feature. Final Act. 7, 11. Noting that the Examiner's rejection reads the claimed "electronic device" on Webb's external computer (PC) and the claimed "signal reception assembly" on Webb's positioner base 600, Appellant argues that Webb does not disclose, either in the cited paragraphs 18 and 39 or elsewhere, "coupling the external PC to a positioner by 'docking [it] onto a component of the [positioner]." Appeal Br. 16. In response, the Examiner, citing a dictionary definition of the term "docking," construes "docking to mean "mechanical joining," and considers "the claim limitation 'coupling the electronic device to the signal reception assembly by docking the electronic device onto a component of the signal reception assembly"' to be satisfied by 'joining the PC with the apparatus." Ans. 10 ( citing Webb ,r,r 10, 39). Webb discloses connecting a PC to the positioner base, in wired manner (i.e., "connection based configurations not employing wireless communications"). Webb ,r 39. A wired connection is a type of mechanical connection or joining. However, even accepting the Examiner's construction of the term "docking" as "mechanical joining," claims 4 and 14 require more than just docking; claims 4 and 14 require that the electronic device be docked onto a component of the signal reception assembly, as illustrated, for example, in Appellant's Figure 2. There are different types of 6 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 wired connections, including, for example, connecting two physically spaced components by a cable and connectors, which do not necessarily involve docking one component onto the other. Thus, Webb's disclosure of connecting the PC to a component of the positioner base in a wired manner is insufficient to constitute docking the PC onto a component of the positioner base as claimed, and the Examiner does not point to any disclosure in Webb of this type of docking. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 14, or claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 4. See Claims App. 6. Claims 22 and 23 In contesting the rejection of claim 22, Appellant relies on the same argument presented against the rejection of claims 4 and 14. Appeal Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant argues that Webb does not disclose "coupling the external PC to a positioner by 'docking [it] onto a component of the [positioner]." Appeal Br. 16. This argument fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 22 because claim 22 does not recite coupling the electronic device to the signal reception assembly by docking it onto a component of the signal reception assembly. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Rather, claim 22, which depends from claim 20, recites an electronic component coupled to the signal reception assembly via a coupling element, wherein "the coupling element comprises a docking station that comprises a connector component." Claims App. 8-9. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 22. Appellant relies on the argument presented against the rejection of claim 22 in contesting the rejection of claim 23. Appeal Br. 17. Thus, 7 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 Appellant also fails to apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 23, which we also sustain. Claim 25 Claim 20, from which claim 25 depends, recites a signal capturing component comprising a coupling element to which an electronic device is coupled. Claims App. 8-10. Claim 25 further recites that "the signal capturing component comprises a low noise block downconverter (LNB)." Id. at 10. The Examiner reads the claimed "signal capturing component" on Webb's antenna 102, and the claimed "low noise block downconverter (LNB)" on Webb's LNB (elements 105, 608, 803). Final Act. 13, 15. The Examiner also finds that the electronic device (Webb's PC) is coupled to the signal reception assembly through a wired connection. Id. at 13. Appellant argues that "the claim requires docking ( or even coupling) the electronic device, which the Examiner equates with the external PC, into the signal assembly that comprises the LNB" and "submits that Webb fails to teach at least this aspect." Appeal Br. 18. According to Appellant, claim 25 requires "that the component of the signal reception assembly onto which the electronic device is docked comprises a signal capturing component that is a low noise block downconverter (LNB)," and "Webb never discloses that its LNB( s) may be used in any manner that may [be] construed as 'docking' of electronic devices." Reply Br. 11. Appellant's argument appears to equate the claimed signal capturing component with the claimed LNB and the claimed coupling element, and, thus, mischaracterizes claim 25, which does not recite that the signal capturing component is the LNB. Moreover, claim 25 does not recite any 8 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 docking at all, much less require that an electronic component be docked into or onto a component of the signal reception assembly comprising the LNB or coupling element. Thus, Appellant's argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 25. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 25. Claims 7 and 16 Claim 7 recites a step of "processing the received signals, to obtain the signal related data, by the signal reception assembly and/or a separate signal processing device." Claims App. 6 (emphasis added). In the rejection, without further explanation, the Examiner simply cites paragraphs 13, 32, 45, and 47 and "PC" of Webb in addressing this limitation. Final Act. 8. "Appellant submits that Webb does not teach, at the above cited paragraphs," this limitation. Appeal Br. 21. In response, the Examiner states: Webb describes how the received signal information is analyzed and used to accurately point the antenna: "Positioner base 600 and antenna housing 601 may comprise a three axis accelerometer or inclinometer, magnetometer, data receiving and relative strength indicator (RSSI) receiver and reports to the microcomputer the signal strength of the signal received and that information is used for accurate positioning of the antenna." Ans. 13 ( citing Webb ,r 45). "Appellant submits that Webb does not teach processing the received satellite signals, particularly for determining the signal related data used in accordance with the steps recited in claim 7." Reply Br. 14. The disclosure relied on by the Examiner as satisfying the claimed "processing" step appears to be the analysis and use of the signal strength of 9 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 the received signal to determine adjustments to point the antenna. This disclosure seems pertinent to the claimed step of "determining based on the positioning information and the signal related data, one or more adjustments to aiming and/or alignment of the signal reception assembly," rather than to the claimed step of processing the received signals to obtain the signal related data, which are then used with the positioning information to determine the adjustment(s) to aiming and/or alignment. Thus, the Examiner fails to provide a sufficiently clear finding as to where Webb discloses the "processing" step of claim 7 so as to establish a sustainable case of anticipation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. Claim 16 contains similar limitations to those discussed above in regard to claim 7. Claims App. 8. Specifically, claim 16 recites that the electronic device is operable to determine the one or more adjustments to aiming and/or alignment from signal related data obtained from processing signals received by the signal reception assembly. Id. The Examiner relies on the same disclosure of Webb regarding use of the signal strength for adjusting the antenna pointing angles, and Appellant presents the same arguments advanced against the rejection of claim 7. Ans. 19--20 ( citing Webb ,r 45); see Appeal Br. 26-28. For essentially the same reasons discussed above in regard to claim 7, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 16. Claims 9 and 17 Claim 9 recites a step of "presenting by the electronic device the one or more adjustments to the aiming or alignment of the signal reception assembly to the user." Claims App. 6. In the rejection, without further 10 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 explanation, the Examiner points to paragraphs 4 and 13 of Webb as disclosing this step. Final Act. 8. Appellant argues that Webb does not disclose in paragraphs 4 and 13, or elsewhere, the aforementioned step of claim 9. Appeal Br. 22-23. In response, the Examiner points to Webb's disclosure of using a PC to host a user interface to enable the user to enter "user commands such as Acquire, Stop, Stow, and Self-test," to be accepted by a microcontroller, which sends signals to the azimuth, elevation, and optional adjustable leg motors to achieve the desired pointing direction. Ans. 14 (citing Webb ,r 13). The disclosure of Webb alluded to by the Examiner is insufficient to support a finding that Webb discloses presenting by the electronic device the one or more adjustments to the user, as recited in claim 9. As discussed above, Webb does not specify the particular content presented by the disclosed display. As Appellant points out, "Webb never teaches that such PC (or any user interface provided thereby) is used to present to the user these signals that the Examiner equates with the recited 'one or more adjustments."' Reply Br. 17. Even if the PC is used to enter "commands, "such as Acquire, Stop, Stow, and Self-test" (Webb ,r 13), that prompt a microcontroller to send adjustment signals to the elevation, azimuth, and adjustable leg motors, that does not necessarily mean that the signals (adjustments), or even the user commands themselves, are presented to the user. Thus, the Examiner has not established a sustainable case of anticipation of the subject matter of claim 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 9. Claim 1 7 recites that "the electronic device is operable to present the one or more adjustments to the aiming or alignment of the signal reception 11 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 assembly to a user." Claims App. 8. In the rejection, without further explanation, the Examiner points to paragraphs 13, 14, and 45 of Webb as disclosing this feature. Final Act. 12. Appellant argues that Webb does not disclose, in the cited paragraphs or elsewhere, the limitation in question. Appeal Br. 3 1. For essentially the reasons set forth above in discussing the rejection of claim 9, the disclosure of Webb relied on by the Examiner is insufficient to support a finding that Webb discloses presenting by the electronic device the one or more adjustments to the user, as recited in claim 17, so as to establish a sustainable case of anticipation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 17. Claims 11, 18, and 19 Claims 11 and 18 recite that the electronic device presents the plurality of available signal sources to the user. Claims App. 6, 8. The Examiner cites paragraphs 13, 14, and 41 as disclosing this limitation. Final Act. 9, 12. More specifically, the Examiner points to Webb's disclosure that the user may select the desired satellite by adjusting the apparatus rotation angles to point the antenna toward the selected satellite or "by selecting 'various orbital constants of a desired satellite."' Ans. 16 ( citing Webb ,r,r 13, 41, 45, 47). As Appellant points out, the portions of Webb cited by the Examiner do not contain an express disclosure of presenting to the user a plurality of signal sources (i.e., satellites) from which to select. Appeal Br. 25. Although one possible interface configuration for permitting a user to select a desired satellite from among a plurality of potential satellites is presenting a menu, or list, of available satellites from which to select, there are also other possible configurations, such as simply presenting an empty field to be 12 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 filled in by the user with identification of a desired satellite, which do not require presentation to the user of a plurality of available choices. For the above reasons, the portions of Webb relied on by the Examiner are insufficient to establish a sustainable case of anticipation of the subject matter of claims 11 and 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 18, or claim 19, which depends from claim 18. Rejection II-Obviousness The deficiency of the rejection of claim 7 discussed above also pervades the rejection of claim 8, which depends from claim 7. In rejecting claim 8 as unpatentable over Webb and Wiedeman, the Examiner does not articulate any additional findings or reasoning that would overcome the deficiency in the rejection of claim 7. See Final Act. 16-17. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 7. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is AFFIRMED as to claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 20- 25, and is REVERSED as to claims 4--7, 9, 11, 14, and 16-19. The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. 13 Appeal2017-010642 Application 13/861,575 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 14 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation