CommScope Technologies LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021000130 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

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. 14/277,167 05/14/2014 Sandra D. Alden 2504/100.1344US01 2946 135878 7590 01/14/2022 Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope 4600 W 77th St Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55435 EXAMINER PACK, CONRAD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): docketing@fogglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANDRA D. ALDEN, VAN E. HANSON, and MICHAEL J. WILLIAMSON Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1-2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CommScope Technologies LLC. Appeal Br. 1. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed May 14, 2014 (claiming benefit of US 61/844,057, filed July 9, 2013); Appeal Brief Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates to a “user interface for a distributed antenna system (DAS).” Abstr. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed subject matter is directed to program products, systems, and methods to implement a user interface for a DAS. The system includes a signal distribution engine that receives information concerning the signals transported by the DAS and the hardware components of the DAS, which include a headend unit communicatively coupled to a remote unit. The signal distribution engine generates a signal set assignment graphical user interface (“GUI”) that presents a representation of signals transported by the DAS as well as a representation of signal sets that include those signals. The signal set assignment GUI also displays an available signals pane and an assigned signals pane. The available signals pane provides a list of signals transported by the DAS that are available to be assigned to a particular signal set. The assigned signals pane provides a list of signals transported by the DAS that are assigned to the particular signal set. The signals transported by the DAS may be assigned (to assigned signal sets) by a user adding available signals to the assigned signals pane via the signal set assignment graphical user interface. The signal distribution engine then generates a signal distribution GUI that includes representations of the assigned signal sets, the hardware components of the DAS, and associations between the assigned signal sets and the hardware components. See Spec. ¶¶ 3-5, 17-31; Abstr. Claim 1 (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 6, 2020; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Oct. 5, 2020. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Sept. 6, 2019; and Answer (“Ans.”), mailed Aug. 3, 2020. Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 3 (directed to a system), claim 8 (directed to a method), claim 13 (directed to a system), and claim 21 (directed to a program product) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a processor device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which a signal distribution engine is stored, wherein the signal distribution engine is executable by the processor device for: receiving information about signals transported by a distributed antenna system (DAS) and about hardware components of the DAS that include a headend unit and a remote unit, wherein the headend unit is communicatively coupled to the remote unit using a communication cable or optical fiber; generating a signal set assignment graphical user interface that includes a representation of signals transported by the DAS and a representation of signal sets that include the signals transported by the DAS, wherein the signal set assignment graphical user interface is configured to display an available signals pane that includes a list of available signals transported by the DAS that are available to be assigned to a particular signal set, wherein the signal set assignment graphical user interface is configured to display an assigned signals pane that includes a list of assigned signals transported by the DAS that are assigned to the particular signal set, wherein the signals transported by the DAS are assigned to assigned signal sets by a user adding or removing available signals to the assigned signals pane via the signal set assignment graphical user interface, wherein each of the assigned signal sets includes one or more of the signals that are transported by the DAS; generating a signal distribution graphical user interface that includes representations of the assigned signal sets, the hardware components, and associations between the assigned signal sets and the hardware components; and responsive to receiving a command via the signal distribution graphical user interface to associate a specified Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 4 signal set with a specified hardware component, outputting a command to cause the DAS to route signals associated with the specified signal set to the specified hardware component over the communication cable or optical fiber. Appeal Br. 23-24 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Latif et al. (“Latif”) US 6,393,483 B1 Mar. 21, 2002 Charbonneau US 2008/0026765 A1 Jan. 31, 2008 Palanisamy et al. (“Palanisamy”) US 2012/0134673 A1 May 31, 2012 Watkins et al. (“Watkins”) US 2013/0051278 A1 Feb. 28, 2013 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-6, 8-13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being as being unpatentable over Palanisamy, Watkins, and Latif. See Final Act. 3-18. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Palanisamy, Watkins, Latif, and Charbonneau. See Final Act. 18-23. ANALYSIS Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 21 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 5 The Examiner rejects claim 1 (as well as independent claims 8, 13, and 21, and dependent claims 2-6 and 9-12) as being obvious in view of Palanisamy, Watkins, and Latif. See Final Act. 3-13; Ans. 3-5. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Palanisamy for teaching most of the features of Appellant’s claim 1, including generating a signal distribution graphical user interface that includes representations of the signal sets. See Final Act. 3-6 (citing Palanisamy ¶¶ 8, 14, 16, 22, 26, 44, 143, 150, 151, 155, 156, 243, 247; Abstr.; Figs. 23, 24, 43, 47A). The Examiner relies on Watkins for teaching generating a signal set assignment graphical user interface, as well as generating a signal distribution graphical user interface, and outputting a command to cause the DAS to route signals associated with a specified signal set to a specified hardware component. See Final Act. 6- 10 (citing Watkins ¶¶ 30, 44-49, 54-57, 59, 61, 66; Figs. 2, 4). The Examiner also relies on Latif for teaching the signal set assignment graphical user interface displaying an available signals pane which displays a list of signals, transported by the DAS, that are available to be assigned to a particular signal set, and an assigned signals pane which displays a list of signals, transported by the DAS, that are assigned to the particular signal set, where the assignment is performed by a user. See Final Act. 10-13 (citing Latif col. 8, ll. 29-36; Fig. 5C). See also Ans. 3-11. Appellant contends that Palanisamy, Watkins, and Latif do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-20; Reply Br. 1-13. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner-cited portions of Latif do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features for which the Examiner cited Latif: Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 6 Contrary to the assertions by the Examiner, the cited portions of Latif do not describe an available signals pane or the assigned signals pane as recited in claim 1. Instead, the cited portions of Latif show a user interface 530 for assigning ports to a particular group of ports. The ports in Latif are not signals, and the cited portions of Latif do not indicate that the ports represent signals in some form as asserted in the September 2019 FOA. Instead, the ports are physical components of one or more multi- port network interface cards (NICs), which are connected to a node inputs of a switch in a network 140, for example. Latif describes that each of the ports has an associated Ethernet MAC address, so it appears that the ports in Latif are Ethernet ports (for example, Ethernet jacks or sockets). Appeal Br. 13. As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[P]reponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”). “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately explain the Examiner’s findings of fact. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not persuasively shown that the combination of Palanisamy, Watkins, and Latif describes the features of the GUIs as set forth in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7-20; Reply Br. 1-13. Although we agree with the Examiner that Palanisamy and Latif describe GUIs and Watkins describes configuring a DAS, the Examiner has Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 7 not provided a detailed claim construction or mapping of the features of Appellant’s claims to the disclosures in the cited references. The Examiner has also not sufficiently explained how the cited portions of the references would have taught or suggested the features to one of ordinary skill in the art. “When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” 37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2) (2019) (emphasis added). Here, the Examiner has not provided the requisite mapping or a sufficient explanation of the pertinence of the cited portions of the prior art. For example, the Examiner has not clearly mapped any disclosure in Latif to the recited available signals pane and assigned signals pane of claim 1, or explained how Latif’s cited port aggregation GUI equates to the recited (claimed) available signals pane and assigned signals pane. To the extent the Examiner asserts that a construction of the claim limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard allowed the Examiner to interpret the displayed information as “items,” disregarding Appellant’s labels for the displayed information, and substitute GUIs with similar functionality (see Ans. 5-7), the Examiner does not sufficiently explain this reasoning with the required clarity. See Final Act. 11-12 (stating that “ports represent[] signals in some form.”). Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Palanisamy, Watkins, and Latif renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 8, 13, Appeal 2021-000130 Application 14/277,167 8 and 21 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2-6 and 9-12 depend from and stand with their respective base claims. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 21. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 15-20 The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 15-20 as obvious over Palanisamy, Watkins, Latif, and Charbonneau. See Final Act. 18-23. As discussed with respect to claim 1 (supra), the Examiner does not sufficiently show that the cited prior art teaches or suggests the recited features and functionality of the claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 15-20 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13 and 15-21 as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-21. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8-13, 21 103 Palanisamy, Watkins, Latif 1-6, 8-13, 21 7, 15-20 103 Palanisamy, Watkins, Latif, Charbonneau 7, 15-20 Overall Outcome 1-13, 15-21 REVERSED