Ex Parte Hanson et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 27, 2019

14399581 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/399,581 02/10/2015 135878 7590 03/29/2019 Fogg & Powers LLC/Commscope 4600 W 77th St Suite 305 Minneapolis, MN 55435 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Van E. Hanson 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. 1 OO. l 438US01 3135 EXAMINER CHEN, ZHITONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2019 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 VANE. HANSON and ALFONS DUSSMANN Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 BACKGROUND This patent application "relates to correcting a Doppler shift in signals transmitted to and from a communication device such as a repeater or mobile phone." Specification ,r 1, filed November 7, 2014 ("Spec."). Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A repeater comprising: a processor configured to determine a corrective frequency shift for a signal received from a source device by: determining a representative transmission frequency by determining a channel associated with the signal and identifying the representative transmission frequency associated with the channel; determining a relative velocity of the repeater to the source device by: determining an identifier, identifying the source device, in the signal; retrieving a geographic location of the source device from a computer readable medium based on the identifier; and determining the relative velocity based on the geographic location of the source device and a geographic location of the repeater; and determining the corrective frequency shift for the signal, without measuring a frequency shift of the signal, by multiplying the relative velocity by the representative transmission frequency and dividing the product by a propagation speed of the signal; a frequency-shifting module in communication with the processor, the frequency-shifting module being configured to shift the signal using the corrective frequency shift prior to wirelessly transmitting the shifted signal to a destination device, wherein the destination device is different from the source device; 2 Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a destination, amongst a plurality of source devices, to which an uplink signal is to be transmitted; and determine a compensating frequency shift for the uplink signal based on an uplink transmission frequency and a velocity of the repeater relative to a geographic location of the destination; wherein the frequency-shifting module is further configured to shift the uplink signal using the compensating frequency shift prior to transmitting the uplink signal to the destination. Appeal Brief 17-18, filed October 12, 2018 ("App. Br."). 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 19-22 1 7 and 16 REJECTIONS Â§ 103 Â§ 103 DISCUSSION Hebb, 2 Lane, 3 and Campbell4 Hebb, Lane, Campbell, Lan, 5 and Rao 6 Claim 1 recites "a processor configured to determine a corrective frequency shift for a signal received from a source device by" "determining a representative transmission frequency by determining a channel associated 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 2 and 11 on this ground. Answer 5, mailed December 3, 2018. The Final Office Action incorrectly states that claims 17 and 23 also stand rejected on this ground. Final Office Action 3, 9, mailed June 14, 2018. 2 Hebb et al. (US 2008/0263601 Al; Oct. 23, 2008). 3 Lane et al. (US 2014/0302872 Al; Oct. 9, 2014). 4 Campbell (US 6,008,758; Dec. 28, 1999). 5 Lan et al. (US 2009/0325594 Al; Dec. 31, 2009). 6 Rao et al. (US 2012/0129520 Al; May 24, 2012). 3 Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 with the signal [received from a source device] and identifying the representative transmission frequency associated with the channel." App. Br. 17. The Examiner found that Hebb teaches the "determining" limitation above because Hebb discloses computing a Doppler offset "from knowledge of the satellite position along with aircraft velocity and position in respect of received signals from satellite(s)." Final Office Action 3, mailed June 14, 2018 ("Final Act."). The Examiner explained that satellite communications "may use various frequency bands" and that "a link between a transmitter and a receiver forms a communication channel," where "each communication link defines a channel and frequency." Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that the cited portion of Hebb "merely states that the offset is computed 'from knowledge of the satellite position along with aircraft velocity and position."" App. Br. 9 (quoting Hebb ,r 20). Appellants contend that Hebb never mentions determining a channel associated with the signal received from a source device or identifying the representative transmission frequency associated with the channel. App. Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. As noted by Appellants, the cited portion of Hebb discloses "computing the offset from knowledge of the satellite position along with aircraft velocity and position." Hebb ,r 20. This portion of Hebb does not disclose that this particular offset involves "received signals from satellite(s)" as found by the Examiner. See Hebb ,r 20. Even if this offset does involve signals received from satellites and the Examiner's characterization of satellite communications is correct, neither fact shows that Hebb' s method of computing a Doppler offset determines a channel associated with the signal received from a source device or identifies the representative transmission frequency associated with the channel. As 4 Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 discussed above, the cited portion of Hebb simply discloses "computing the offset from knowledge of the satellite position along with aircraft velocity and position." Hebb ,r 20. The Examiner also found that, along with the teachings of Hebb discussed above, Campbell discloses a downlink channel, uplink channels, bi-directional channels, and frequency determination and correction for different types of channels and frequencies. Answer 4, mailed December 3, 2018 ("Ans."). The Examiner concluded that "[t]herefore, [the] combination of Hebb, Lane[,] and Campbell fully teaches" the disputed "determining" limitation. Ans. 4. Appellants contend that the Examiner's combination of Hebb, Lane, and Campbell does not teach or suggest this limitation See App. Br. 8-12. Regarding Campbell, Appellants argue that Campbell does not determine a representative transmission frequency because Campbell already knows the transmit frequency and thus does not need to determine it. App. Br. 11. We agree that the Examiner erred. The Examiner did not explain why the combined teachings of Hebb, Campbell, and Lane result in the "determining" limitation. See Ans. 4. The Examiner merely stated that the combination of the cited art "fully teaches" the limitation. Ans. 4. Nor did the Examiner explain why the cited portions of Campbell teach this limitation or specify what aspects of the disclosed channels and "frequency determination and correction methods for different types of channels and frequencies" correspond to this limitation. See Ans. 4. Although the cited portions of Campbell teach acquiring a "P Channel," the Examiner has not explained why this disclosure teaches determining a channel associated with the signal received from a source device or identifying the representative 5 Appeal2019-002451 Application 14/399,581 transmission frequency associated with the channel. See Ans. 4. Given the Examiner's failure to adequately explain the basis for this rejection, we do not sustain it. On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown that the cited art teaches or suggests the disputed "determining" limitation. We thus reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 10 suffers from similar deficiencies, we also reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims. DECISION 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, Hebb, Lane, 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14,and Â§ 103 and 12, 14,and 19-22 Cam bell 19-22 Hebb, Lane, 7 and 16 Â§ 103 Campbell, 7 and 16 Lan, and Rao 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, Summary 10, 12, 14, 16, and 19- 22 REVERSED 6