Ex Parte Visweswara et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

14781628 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

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.
14/781,628 10/01/2015 ASHOKA SATHANUR VISWESWARA 2012P01780WOUS 1175
24737 7590 02/02/2018
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
marianne. fox @ philips, com
katelyn.mulroy @philips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHOKA SATHANUR VISWESWARA,
ANTENEH ALEMU ABBO, SOTIR FILIPOV OUZOUNOV,
JOHAN-PAUL MARIE GERARD LINNARTZ, and
RONALD VAN LANGEVELDE
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—16. See App. Br. 10—16.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Koninklijke Phillips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (“Final Act.”)
mailed October 13, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed March 8,
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention wakes up a receiver of a body-coupled
communication device. Spec. 1:1—3. Devices near a user’s body can use
body-coupled communication (BCC) to exchange information. Id. at 1:9-
10. In BCC, devices transmit signals via the body instead of a wire or radio.
Id. at 1:10-11. In Appellants’ BCC system, a main receiver operates in
operational mode and sleep mode. Id. at 14:26—27. Sleep mode is used to
save power. Id. at 15:17—18. When the receiver gets a “wake-up signal,”
the system configures the main receiver into operational mode. Id. at 15:15—
18. To avoid false wake-up directions from noise or interference, the wake-
up receiver compares the total energy received to a threshold. Id. at 16:4—
13. If the total received energy is greater than the threshold, the system
sends a wake-up signal to the main receiver. Id. at 16:9-13.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the limitation at
issue:
1. A receiver module for a body coupled communication device
and adapted to receive signals via a body transmission channel,
the receiver module comprising:
a plurality of couplers for receiving the signals from the
body transmission channel being formed by a body of a user
when the body is in a direct vicinity of the couplers,
a main receiver being coupled to the couplers, wherein the
main receiver is configured to receive data via the signals
transmitted via the body transmission channel, the main receiver
2017, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 12, 2017, and (4) the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed September 1, 2017. Appellants filed a
correction to the Appeal Brief on April 18, 2017. This corrected appeal brief
contained only a revised the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter section.
We do not refer to the revised section in this decision. Accordingly, our
citations refer to the page numbers of original Appeal Brief filed.
2
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
being configured to operate in a sleep mode and an operational
mode,
a wake-up receiver being coupled to the couplers, wherein
the wake-up receiver is configured to provide a wake-up signal
to a circuit of the body coupled communication device for
configuring the main receiver in the operational mode, wherein
the wake-up receiver comprises a band-pass filter for allowing
the signals to pass in a predefined spectral range related to wake-
up signals transmitted via the body transmission channel,
the wake-up receiver is configured to generate the wake-
up signal when an energy of the signals received by the couplers
in the predefined spectral range exceeds an energy threshold
level, and
the wake-up receiver comprises an energy reception level
detector being configured to detect whether a total amount of the
energy of the signals received by the couplers in the predefined
spectral range during an interval of time exceeds the energy
threshold level.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Coulthard
Schenk
Walker
Fukuda
US 2004/0044493 A1
US 2010/0315206 A1
US 2012/0077433 A1
US 8,625,557 B2
Mar. 4, 2004
Dec. 16, 2010
Mar. 29, 2012
Jan. 7,2014
NFC Forum, Connection Handover, Technical Specification, NFC Forum,
Connection Handover 1.2, 1—23 (July 7, 2010) (“NFC Forum”).
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fukuda and Schenk. Final Act. 2—6.
Claims 2—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fukuda, Schenk, and Coulthard. Final Act. 6—8.
3
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fukuda, Schenk, and Walker. Final Act. 9-10.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Fukuda, Schenk, Walker, and NFC Forum. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fukuda, Schenk, and NFC Forum. Final Act. 12—13.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER FUKUDA AND SCHENK
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner finds Fukuda teaches every limitation recited in
independent claim 1 except for totaling the amount of energy for the
plurality of couplers. Final Act. 3. In concluding that claim 1 would have
been obvious, the Examiner finds Schenk teaches this feature. Id. at 3^4. In
particular, the Examiner finds Schenk uses a plurality of couplers and totals
their signal strength. Id. According to the Examiner, it would have been
obvious to use a plurality of couplers and total their strength in Fukuda to
generate Schenk’s diversity output signal. Id. at 4; see also id. at 13—14
(discussing the proposed modification to Fukuda).
Presenting a similar rationale, the Examiner also rejects independent
claims 11 and 15 as unpatentable over Fukuda and Schenk. Id. at 4—6.
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants argue that Fukuda and Schenk lack the recited total
amount of the energy of the signals. App. Br. 10—15; Reply Br. 2—6.
According to Appellants, Schenk uses an average, not a total, of the signals’
energy. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellants contend that Schenk
4
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
compares the individual voltages to the average instead of comparing the
total energy to a threshold. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2, 4. Moreover, in
Appellants’ view, Figure 4’s summation does not even represent the signals’
total energy because Schenk weights the signals and includes a ground
voltage in every iteration of the summation. App. Br. 15 (citing
Schenk | 52); Reply Br. 5—6.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that there is no motivation to
combine Fukuda and Schenk, no reasonable expectation of success, and no
prima facie case of obviousness. Reply Br. 6—9.
Appellants argue that independent claims 11 and 15 are patentable for
“substantially the same reasons as claim 1.” App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 9.
Issue
Appellants’ arguments for independent claims 1,11, and 15 (see
App. Br. 10-15; Reply Br. 2—6) present us with the following issue:
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1,11, and 15 by finding that Fukuda and Schenk,
collectively, would have taught or suggested the recited total amount of the
energy of the plurality of signals?
Analysis
For the reasons that follow, we are unconvinced that the Examiner
erred.
In particular, we disagree with Appellants’ argument that Schenk does
not total the amount of energy of the signals (App. Br. 15). As the Examiner
discusses (e.g., Ans. 7), Schenk uses “electrode diversity” to select an
5
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
electrode for a certain transmission or—most relevant to the limitation at
issue—to combine signals from different couplers. Schenk 114. For
example, Schenk combines signals from different couplers using a weighted
sum. Id. Although these weights could be based on the signal-to-noise
ratio, Schenk teaches that a simpler solution adds all signals with equal
weight. Id. 1 58, cited in Ans. 7. The Examiner relies, in part, on the
summation shown in Schenk’s Figure 4, reproduced below. See Final
Act. 13 (citing Figs. 3^4)
Schenk’s Figure 4, above, shows signals weighted by multiplier 44 then
summed by adder 46 to obtain output y. Schenk 152. Schenk expresses this
operation as y = Yii aL xL + agg , where x, and a-, denote the voltage of and
weighting value for the ith electrode. Id. Schenk teaches setting aL to 1 for
all i. Id. 1 58, cited in Final Act. 13, Ans. 7.
On this record, Appellants have not supported, adequately, the
contention that Schenk includes a ground voltage in every iteration of the
summation. App. Br. 15. Essentially, Appellants read Schenk’s equation
6
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
(1) as y = Zifa xt + agg). See id. Schenk’s Figure 4, however, does not
support such a reading because the diagram shows only one GND reference
voltage (g) received by adder 46. See Schenk Fig. 4.
We, likewise, are unconvinced by Appellants’ argument regarding
Schenk’s weights. App. Br. 15. Although using unequal weights may not
represent a true total, Schenk’s simple solution gives every signal equal
weight by setting a to 1. Schenk | 58, cited in Final Act. 13, Ans. 7. In this
way, Schenk teaches the recited total. Final Act. 13, Ans. 7.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments regarding Schenk’s voltage
averaging does not address, squarely, the particular teachings relied upon by
the Examiner. See App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2—5. Here, although Fukuda
lacks a plurality of couplers (Final Act. 3), the Examiner relies upon
Schenk’s teachings to remedy this deficiency. In doing so, the Examiner
incorporates Schenk’s teachings to generate a “diversity output signal” in the
proposed combination. Final Act. 4. Schenk explains that a diversity output
signal is created by combing signals. Schenk Abstract. According to
Schenk, this increases “robustness against coupler misplacement and user
convenience.” Id.
Appellants’ arguments are focused on Schenk’s individual voltage
comparisons and subsequent selection of one electrode. See App. Br. 10-13;
Reply Br. 2—5. To be sure, one of Schenk’s embodiments selects an
electrode for a certain transmission. Schenk 114. Schenk, however, also
teaches combining signals from different couplers. Id. It is this latter
teaching that the Examiner’s rejection is based on. Final Act. 3^4
(discussing Schenk’s diversity output signal and citing Schenk Abstract); see
also Final Act. 14 (discussing summing the strength of a plurality of
7
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
couplers). That is, “instead of selecting one (or two) of the signal electrodes
40, the signals from different plates could be selected.” Schenk 158,
discussed in Ans. 7. In doing so, Schenk adds the signals with equal
weights, as described above. Schenk 158. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding Schenk’s voltage
averaging and selection (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2—5).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants for the first time present several
arguments regarding the lack of (1) a motivation to combine Fukuda and
Schenk, (2) a reasonable expectation of success, and (3) a prima facie case
of obviousness. Reply Br. 6—9. These arguments, however, were not raised
in the Appeal Brief. See App. Br 9—16. Nor are they responsive to an
argument raised in the Examiner’s Answer. See id. Rather, the Examiner’s
Answer reiterated the Final Rejection’s rationale based on diversity.
Compare Ans. 7—8 (discussing diversity) with Final Act. 4 (citing
Schenk Abstract), 13—14 (discussing the plurality of couplers). According to
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2),
[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in
the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of
rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal, unless good cause is shown.
We, therefore, will not consider Appellants’ newly presented arguments
(Reply Br. 6—9) for the purposes of this appeal.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
rejection of independent claim 1, or claims 10, 11 and 15, which are not
argued separately with particularity (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 9-10).
8
Appeal 2017-011275
Application 14/781,628
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
In arguing for the patentability of independent claim 14 and the claims
2—9, 12, 13, and 16, Appellants explain that these claims are patentable for
substantially the same reasons as claim 1 or by virtue of their dependency.
App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 9-10. But we were unpersuaded by those
reasons, as we discussed in connection with claim 1. Therefore, we also
sustain the rejections of claims 2—9, 12—14, and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9