Ex Parte Khanna et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12714153 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121714,153 02/26/2010 23494 7590 05/02/2016 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Saurabh Khanna 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. TI-68544 6115 EXAMINER CHOU, ALBERT T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2471 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAURABH KHANNA, SARMA SUNDARESW ARE GUNTURI, and VIJA YA SARA THY BERG AI PAR THASARATHY Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 STATE~vfENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14, and 15. Claims 3-7, 11-13, and 16-20 are allowed. We have jurisdiction over the rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to switching between transmit and receive modes in a wireless transceiver. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method implemented in a wireless transceiver, said wireless transceiver containing a first set of components in a receiver portion, and a second set of components in a transmitter portion, said method comprising: receiving a receive signal from a wireless medium; decoding said receive signal to extract data contained in said receive signal; and after said receiving, initiating a powering-ON of said second set of components prior to initiating a powering-OFF of said first set of components during a period of time said second set of components remains powered-ON. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Palm et al. US 2008/0019344 Al Jan.24,2008 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§102(e) as being anticipated by Palm. Ans. 3-5. 2 Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 Claims 2, 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§103(a) as being unpatentable over Palm and Applicant's Admitted Prior Art ("AAP A"). Ans. 6-8. APPELLANTS' CONTENTION1 Palm's device never (i) provides power to a receiver while a transmitter is unpowered or (ii) provides power to a transmitter while a receiver is unpowered and, therefore, fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of "after [] receiving [a receive signal from a wireless medium], initiating a power-ON of said second set of [transmitter] components prior to initiating a powering-OFF of said first set of [receiver] components during a period of time said second set of [transmitter] components remains powered- ON" as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-9. ANALYSIS The 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) Rejection We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 16 as being anticipated by Palm. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. Appellants argue Palm does not teach "after receiving, initiating a power-ON of said second set of components prior to initiating a powering- OFF of said first set of components during a period of time said second set of components remains powered-ON" because "[ t ]here is no time period 1 Separately, we note Appellants' Reply Brief appears to be printed using a type of toner-saver mode or otherwise processed, resulting in a pattern of missing portions of the text fonts. See 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a)(l)(iv) and 37 C.F.R. 1.52(a)(l )(v). 3 Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 [disclosed by Palm] when First Assigned Slave RX is lJt-JPO\tVERED while First Assigned Slave TX is POWERED, OR when Other Assigned Slave(s) RX is UNPOWERED while Other Assigned Slave(s) TX is POWERED." App. Br. 7. The Examiner responds by finding (i) the disputed features, "during a time period in which First Assigned Slave RX is UNPOWERED while First Assigned Slave TX is POWERED", by the Appellants are not recited by claim 1 and (ii) Palm's transmitter and receiver are both powered- ON during at least some portions of assigned poll data, thereby teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 10-11 (emphasis omitted). We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 and, instead, conclude there is a requirement for the transmitter (i.e., second set of components) to remain on while initiating a powering-off of the receiver (i.e., first set of components.) In particular, the final paragraph of claim 1 includes two steps: (i) initiating a powering-on of the second set of components (i.e., components of a transmitter portion) and (ii) initiating a powering-off of the first set of components (i.e., components of the receiver portion). Claim 1 further imposes timing requirements as follows: (a) step (i) of initiating a powering-on of the transmitter portion occurs prior to step (ii) of powering-off the receiver portion; (b) step (ii) of initiating a powering-off of the receiver portion occurs while the transmitter portion remains on. That is, according to the claimed method, the transmitter is turned on before turning-off the receiver and the receiver is turned off while the transmitter is still on. The Examiner properly interprets claim 1 to require timing relationship (a) "in which both the receive and transmit portions of the wireless transceiver are simultaneously in a power-ON state." Ans. 10 (emphasis omitted). However, the Examiner dismisses as irrelevant 4 Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 Appellants' arguments directed to timing relationship (b) "in which First Assigned Slave RX is UNPOWERED while First Assigned Slave TX is POWERED [because the argued features] are not recited in the rejected Claims 1, 8, and 14" (id., emphasis omitted). We disagree with the Examiner's interpretation because it is inconsistent with the claim language itself. In particular, the temporal requirement of "during a period of time said second set of ["transmitter"] components remains powered-ON" must apply to the step of "initiating a powering-OFF of the first set of ["receiver"] components. In finding Appellants' argument irrelevant, the Examiner either ignores this temporal requirement or interprets it as applying to step (i). In connection with the former alternative, it is error to simply ignore the recited temporal relationship. Likewise, in connection with the latter alternative, it is error to interpret claim 1 such that the temporal relationship instead applies to step (i) of powering-on the transmitter portion because, to do so, would unreasonably result in a requirement of "initiating a powering-ON of said second set of [transmitter] components ... during a period of time said second set of components [transmitter] remains powered-ON. Accordingly, the Examiner's interpretation of claim 1 is improper. Therefore, because Palm's slave transmitters do not remain on after the corresponding receivers are turned off, the reference fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of "initiating a powering-ON of said second set of components prior to initiating a powering-OFF of said first set of components during a period of time said second set of components remains powered-ON" as required by claim 1. 5 Appeal2014-007526 Application 12/714, 153 Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) or, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 8 and 14 which contain similar limitations. Likewise, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 9, 10, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Palm and AAPA, as the Examiner's applications of AAPA fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 8-10, 14, and 15 is reversed. REVERSED 6