Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2017

13887848 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2017)

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.
13/887,848 05/06/2013 Lin Yang 122365U1 1086
23696 7590 01/23/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
BOLOURCHI, NADER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIN YANG, YOUHAN KIM, SAMEER VERMANI,
TEVFIK YUCEK, and HEMANTH SAMPATH
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,8481
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, AMBER L. HAGY, 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—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to wireless communication in sub-gigahertz
bands. Spec. 12.
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,848
1. An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
a processor configured to generate a packet for
transmission via a wireless signal, wherein the packet is
generated for transmission over a bandwidth of 1 MHz using at
least one orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM)
symbol; and
a transmitter configured to transmit the packet via the
wireless signal having a power spectral density, wherein:
the power spectral density within ±0.45 MHz of a
center frequency of the wireless signal is at a first power
spectral density level;
the power spectral density between 0.45 MHz and
0.6 MHz from the center frequency of the wireless signal
and between -0.45 MHz and -0.6 MHz from the center
frequency of the wireless signal is less than the first power
spectral density level;
the power spectral density between 0.6 MHz and 1
MHz from the center frequency of the wireless signal and
between -0.6 MHz and -1 MHz from the center frequency
of the wireless signal is less than -20 dBr with respect to
the first power spectral density level;
the power spectral density between 1 MHz and 1.5
MHz from the center frequency of the wireless signal and
between -1 MHz and -1.5 MHz from the center frequency
of the wireless signal is less than -28 dBr with respect to
the first power spectral density level; and
the power spectral density of greater than ±1.5 MHz
from the centerfrequency of the wireless signal is less than
-40 dBr with respect to the first power spectral density
level.
Rejections
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stacey et al., Proposed TGac Draft Amendment, IEEE 802.1 l-10/136rl
(Nov. 11,2010). Final Act. 10.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Stacey and Lee et al. (US 2010/0136903 Al; June 3, 2010). Final Act. 21.
2
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,848
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—5 & 13—15
Claim 1 recites “a bandwidth of 1 MHz” with certain power spectral
densities (e.g., “less than -28 dBr”) over specific MHz ranges (e.g.,
“between 1 MHz and 1.5 MHz from the center frequency”). The prior art
Stacey teaches substantially the same pattern of decreasing power spectral
densities as Figure 10A of the present application, only scaled to a
bandwidth of 20 MHz rather than 1 MHz. Ans. 18 (comparing Spec. Fig.
10A with Stacey Fig. 22-17).
The Examiner concludes scaling Stacey from 20 MHz to 1 MHz
renders claim 1 obvious because
Applicant merely claims complying with the requirements of the
transmission mask. To achieve this, i.e., to comply with the
transmission requirements, one of ordinary skill, using the
transmission mask, is inherently obligated to alter the
transmitting signals by varying power of transmitting signal,
based on the design requirements, as claimed. This means:
comparing the frequency and power of each carrier frequency
with the transmission mask requirement and varying the carrier
power, accordingly.
Therefore, the Applicant’s claims ha[ve] been interpreted
as an obvious procedure of varying the “signal power” of the
carrier frequencies, according to the relationship between the
transmission mask and the carrier frequencies, based on the
design requirements, in order to avoid signal transmission power
to surpass those limit[s] set by the transmission mask.
Ans. 19-20, 5.
Appellants argue the Examiner has essentially taken “official notice of
facts without citing a prior art reference where the facts asserted to be well
known are not capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being
well-known.” App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
3
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,848
The Examiner finds claim 1 obvious based on the direct relationship
between varying Ifequency and power. Ans. 19—20. Such a relationship can
be seen in both Stacey and the present application. For example, Appellants
note “Stacey generally describes the use of 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, and
160 MHz signals.” App. Br. 10 (citing Stacey 99). Stacey discloses a direct
relationship between channel frequency and spectral mask inflection points
such that, for example, when the channel bandwidth doubles (e.g., from 20
MHz to 40 MHz), the spectral density doubles as well (e.g., -28 dBr at 20
MHz becomes -28 dBr at 40 MHz, and -40 dBr at 30 MHz becomes -40 dBr
at 60 MHz). Stacey 99-101. The present application provides the same
scaling, such as claim 1 having “a bandwidth of 1 MHz” and a power
spectral density level “less than -28 dBr” within the range “1 MHz and 1.5
MHz,” whereas claim 2 doubles the bandwidth (“a bandwidth of 2 MHz”)
and accordingly doubles the range (e.g., “between 2 MHz and 3 MHz” for
power spectral density “less than -28 dBr”). Spec, at claims 1—5. Thus,
Appellants disclose the same scaling relationship at lower bandwidths (e.g.,
“for 1 MHz, 2 MHz, 4 MHz, 8 MHz, and 16 MHz”) as Stacey does for
higher bandwidths (e.g., 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, and 160 MHz). Spec.
122; Stacey 99-101.
Appellants contend “[s]uch lower bandwidths introduce different
designs concerns” (App. Br. 11—12), yet this argument is not persuasive
because Appellants do not identify any specific design concern. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (requiring more explanation
than a “naked assertion”). Nor have Appellants provided any reason why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected Stacey’s scaling to be
any different in lower bandwidths or otherwise yield unexpected results. As
4
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,848
the Supreme Court has held, “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416(2007).
The Federal Circuit’s predecessor court has said “it is clear that mere
scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up . . . would not
establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1053 (CCPA 1976). Given the record before us,
Appellants have not sufficiently persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
Stacey renders scaling obvious based on the design requirements of the
application.
Appellants further argue “if one skilled in the art down-scaled
Stacey’s 20 MHz signal to a 1 MHz signal, the result would be a 1 MHz
transmission using a frequency offset of ±0.55 MHz” rather than the claimed
+0.6 MHz. App. Br. 12. However, this argument is not commensurate with
the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites “the power spectral density between
0.45 MHz and 0.6 MHz ... is less than the first power spectral density level
[i.e., the level from the center frequency to 0.45 MHz].” A down-scaled
version of Stacey meets this limitation. Specifically, as shown in Figure 22-
17, Stacey’s power spectral density from 9—12 MHz (which, when divided
by 20, down-scales to the claimed 0.45-0.6 MHz) is “less than” the power
spectral density from the center frequency to 9 MHz (which down-scales to
0-0.45 MHz). Stacey 99. Claim 1 further recites “the power spectral
density between 0.6 MHz and 1 MHz ... is less than -20 dBr with respect to
the first power spectral density level.” Spec, at claim 1 (emphasis added).
Again, a down-scaled version of Stacey meets this limitation. In Figure 22-
5
Appeal 2016-002908
Application 13/887,848
17, the power spectral density from 12—20 MHz (which, when divided by
20, down-scales to the claimed 0.6—1 MHz) is “less than -20 dBr.” Id.
Thus, a down-scaled version of Stacey meets the claimed limitations.
Appellants’ argument concerning the “technical benefits” of 0.6 MHz over
0.55 MHz (App. Br. 12 & n.l) are not relevant to the obviousness of the
only modification of Stacey needed, which is scaling.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2—5 and 13—15, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar
reasons. See App. Br. 13—16; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 6—12
In addition to the arguments related to claim 1 above, Appellants
further contend “the Office Action explicitly acknowledges that Stacey does
not disclose such specific parameters” as dependent claims 6—12. App. Br.
16—17. Yet the Examiner relies not only on Stacey’s express disclosure but
also on the scaling modification of Stacey. Ans. 7—15. Appellants’
argument fails to meaningfully address the Examiner’s proposed
modifications. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—12.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—15.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6