MaxLinear, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 22, 20202019005250 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/602,786 01/22/2015 Curtis Ling M3921.10009US02 9585 164869 7590 12/22/2020 MB - MAXLINEAR, INC. 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 Park City, UT 84098 EXAMINER NGO, NGUYEN HOANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/22/2020 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): d@mabr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CURTIS LING Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 Technology Center 2400 Before, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 13, and 15–20, all of the claims pending.2 Appeal Br. 1. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App). Claims 2 and 14 have been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification filed Jan. 22, 2015 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 5, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 12, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed June 27, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies MaxLinear, Inc., as the real party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to auto- configured small cell backhaul transceiver (100j) performing beamforming to discover a network. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 18–20, Fig. 2. Figure 2, reproduced and discussed below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Figure 2 above illustrates auto-configured small cell backhaul transceiver (100j) including antenna arrays (110) for each antenna element (112), positioning circuitry (218), sensor (214), and signal processing circuitry (208). Spec. ¶¶ 2, 18–20. Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 3 In particular, upon determining via positioning circuitry (218) the location of another transceiver, and via sensor (214) the orientation of the transceiver, signal processing circuitry (208) uses a spreading code algorithmically generated from a unique identifier of the location (including global positioning system coordinates and/or a street address) to produce a beacon signal, which it transmits to another device via antenna arrays (110) by radiating in multiple directions. Id. ¶¶ 18–25. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: in a microwave backhaul transceiver comprising a plurality of antenna arrays, positioning circuitry, a sensor and signal processing circuitry: determining, via said positioning circuitry, a location of said microwave backhaul transceiver; determining, via said sensor, an orientation of said microwave backhaul transceiver, wherein said microwave backhaul transceiver is operable to adjust said orientation based on a wind load; generating, via said signal processing circuitry, a beacon signal that uniquely indicates said location, wherein said beacon signal uses a spreading code algorithmically generated from a unique identifier of said location, wherein said signal processing circuitry comprises a digital to analog converter (DAC) operable to convert a microwave band comprising said beacon signal from a digital signal to an analog signal; and transmitting said analog microwave band via at least one of said antenna arrays, wherein said beacon signal within said analog microwave band is controlled dynamically according to said orientation. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 4 III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references.3 Name Reference Date Lee US 5,894,291 Apr. 13, 1999 Sasich US 6,661,904 B1 Dec. 9, 2003 Davidson US 2007/0063911 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Doppler US 2011/0267977 A1 Nov. 3, 2011 Roh US 2013/0185617 A1 Jul. 18, 2013 Kangas US 2014/0133542 A1 May 15, 2014 Huang US 2014/0269532 A1 Sep. 18, 2014 Sahin US 2015/0109943 A1 Apr. 23, 2015 IV. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–13, and 15–20 as follows: Claims 1, 5–7, 13, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh. Final Act. 3–9. Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh, and Doppler. Id. at 9–10. Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh, and Kangas. Id. 10–11. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 5 V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 3–13 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–8.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2–17; Ans. 3–17. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh teaches or suggests algorithmically generating a beacon signal using a spreading code from a unique location identifier, as recited in independent claims 1, and 13. Appeal Br. 4–8. In particular, Appellant argues that Sasich’s disclosure of decoding spreading codes to identify a data location does not teach or suggest the claimed spreading codes are generated from a data location, and, thereby, does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, and Roh. Id. at 5–7 (citing Sasich 5:30–45). According to Appellant, although Sasich discloses spreading codes are decoded to identify a transformation coefficient (TC) containing user data, and, thereby, teaches spreading code is related to a particular user data location, Sasich does not teach that the spreading code is generated from the data location. Id. at 6. Appellant emphasizes that because Sasich’s disclosure is silent as to how the spreading codes are particularly generated, and the disclosed user location is 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2014). Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 6 not necessarily associated with one unique spreading code, Sasich does not teach the disputed limitations. Id. at 7–8. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error because they are tantamount to an individual attack against Sasich, as opposed to the combined teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh, as relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1.5 One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references or the embodiments thereof individually where the rejections are based on combined teachings of the references and/or embodiments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In particular, the Examiner relies upon Huang to teach a transmitter transmitting to a user equipment (UE) a beacon generated with different spreading codes from different geographic locations. Final Act. 7, Ans. 13 (citing Huang ¶¶ 105, 106, 114). The Examiner further relies upon Sasich to teach algorithmically generating a spreading code from geographic location. Id. (citing Sasich 5:30–45).6 We find the Examiner’s 5 Appellant seeks to raise for the first time in the Reply Brief arguments regarding Huang. Reply Br. 2–8. Appellant forfeits those belated arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”). 6 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference …. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by the formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of … the explicit Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 7 proposed combination of the cited teachings of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh is no more than a simple arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a transmitter transmitting to UEs a beacon with a spreading code algorithmically generated from different geographic locations. Id. at 420–21. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on this record, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 13 as unpatentable over the combination of Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, and Roh. Regarding the rejections of claims 3–8 and 15–20, Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same content of issued patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007). Appeal 2019-005250 Application 14/602,786 8 arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claims 1 and 13 above. As such, claims 3–8 and 15–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). VI. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–8, 13, and 15–20. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–7, 13, 17, 18, 19 103 Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh 1, 5–7, 13, 17, 18, 19 3, 4, 15, 16 103 Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh, Doppler 3, 4, 15, 16 8, 20 103 Huang, Sahin, Davidson, Lee, Sasich, Roh, Kangas 8, 20 Overall Outcome 1, 3–8, 13, 15–20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation