Ex Parte Moshfeghi

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 15, 2017

13919932 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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. 13/919,932 06/17/2013 Mehran Moshfeghi GLBA.P0046 1062 759048947 ADELI LLP 11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 12/19/2017 EXAMINER CHAKRABORTY, RAJARSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2017 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): Mail @ adelillp. com PatentOffice @ adelillp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHRAN MOSHFEGHI Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,9321 Technology Center 2600 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Golba LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,932 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellant describes the invention as “relating] to a method and system for distributed transceivers and mobile device connectivity.” Spec. 14. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method of communicating data between a mobile communication device and a plurality of mobile entities, the mobile communication device and each of the plurality of mobile communication entities comprising a plurality of distributed transceivers, each distributed transceiver comprising a corresponding antenna array comprising a plurality of antennas, the method comprising: receiving one or more data streams at a first mobile entity of the plurality of mobile entities; configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the first mobile entity based on at least one of a current location of the first mobile entity and a speed of the first mobile entity to transmit the received one or more data streams to a second mobile entity of the plurality of mobile entities; configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the second mobile entity based on at least one of a current location of the second mobile entity and a speed of the second mobile entity to: receive the one or more data streams from said one or more distributed transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the first mobile entity; and transmit said one or more data streams to the mobile communication device; and configuring one or more of said plurality of distributed transceivers and the corresponding antenna arrays of the mobile communication device to receive said one or more data streams 2 Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,932 transmitted from said one or more distributed transceivers and said corresponding antenna arrays of the second mobile entity. References and Rejections 1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-11, 13, 14, 17-27, 29, 32-36, 38, and 41^14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking (US 2009/0156227 Al, pub. June 18, 2009) and Rofougaran (US 2010/0136922 Al, pub. June 3, 2010). Final Act. 2-12. 2. Claims 2, 6, 12, 16, 28, 31, 37, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Rofougaran, and Hoshino (US 2005/0181755 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2015). Final Act. 12-15. 3. Claims 5, 15, 30, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Frerking, Rofougaran, and Schmidt (US 2012/0194385 Al, pub. Aug. 2, 2012). Final Act. 15-16. FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS Claim 1 requires that first and second mobile entities have their transceivers and antennas configured based on at least one of a speed and a location of the mobile entities. The Examiner finds Frerking discloses “a mobile handset 404 that communicates with base station 402 in Fig. 4, wherein mobile handset 404 includes multiple transceivers . . . and base station 402 includes multiple transceivers.” Ans. 19. The Examiner further finds the mobile handset and base station transmit communications of data streams. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds “Rofougaran discloses mobile communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 in Fig. 3 that communicate with each other via 3 Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,932 an access point (AP) 110” and include a plurality of wireless transceivers. Ans. 19—20. According to the Examiner, these mobile communication devices have integrated circuits (e.g., IC 50) that “generate[] motion parameters based on motion of the mobile communication device.” Ans. 19. Combining the teachings of Rofougaran with Frerking, the Examiner finds the combination discloses a communication system that includes multiple mobile communication devices, wherein each mobile communication device includes a plurality of transceivers. Each of the mobile devices can configure/synchronize/select their transceivers to transmit/receive data streams according to current channel characteristics (such as change in transmit/receive characteristics with motion of the mobile communication device) and mobile communication devices can generate motion parameters based on motion of the mobile communication devices. Ans. 20. Appellant argues that the devices depicted in Figure 3 of Rofougaran, which include mobile communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125, and access point 110, do not teach the first and second mobile entities. See App. Br. 13-17. Referring first to access point 110, Appellant argues that “access point 110 in Fig. 3 is [not] a mobile entity” because it is “non-mobile”2 (App. Br. 14-15); see also Reply Br. 4 (“the difference between the recited mobile 2 Because we reverse the Examiner’s decision based on other grounds, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s argument that Rofourgan’s access point does not teach a mobile entity because it is non-mobile. However, we note Appellant’s Specification describes that the mobile entity “may be semi stationary or fixed entity .... For example, it may be installed on a lamp pole, a structure such as a building and/or a rooftop.” Spec. 127. Thus, even if Rofougaran’s access point is fixed at a certain location, it may still teach or suggest a mobile entity as claimed. 4 Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,932 entities in claims 1 and 11 and the access points disclosed in Frerking and Rofougaran is that the recited mobile entitles are mobile access points[,] while the access points disclosed in Frerking and Rofougaran are fixed access points”). Appellant contends that there is “no reference to the speed or location of the access point AP 110 being used to configure any components of the access point.” App. Br. 15. Instead, according to Appellant, Rofougaran discloses that the location/motion information applies to the other mobile communication devices depicted in Figure 3, not the access point. App. Br. 15. Referring to the mobile devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 of Rofougaran’s Fig. 3, Appellant argues these devices also fail to disclose the claimed first and second mobile entities because they “are not devices that receive one or more data streams and transmit them to another device (a characteristic of an access point).” App. Br. 16. As such these devices, according to Appellant, are “similar to the [claimed] mobile device . . . and not the recited first and second mobile entities.” App. Br. 17. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds Rofougaran, which discloses a set of communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 that communicate through access point 110 (Ans. 19-20; see also Rofougaran Fig. 3) teaches or suggests the claimed first and second mobile entities having their transceivers and antennas configured based on at least one of a speed and a location of the mobile entities (Final Act. 5; Ans. 19- 20; Rofougaran 146). The Examiner finds an access point “qualifies as a ‘mobile entity.’” App. Br. 20. However, although Rofougaran teaches that 5 Appeal 2017-006503 Application 13/919,932 the communication devices generate location and motion parameters, it does not teach that access point 110 generates these parameters. We therefore agree with Appellant that access point 110 does not correspond to or suggest either of the claimed first or second mobile entities.3 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 or of independent claims 11, 27, and 36, which contain commensurate limitations and were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 2—5. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims that depend from claims 1, 11, 27, or 36. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—44 is reversed. REVERSED 3 The Examiner also states that the claims do not preclude the presence of an access point to enable communication between communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 (Ans. 20), implying an alternative set of findings that may not rely upon access point 110 as corresponding to one of the claimed mobile entities. However, the Examiner does not explicitly make findings as to whether and how communication devices 91, 93, 97, and 125 correspond to the claimed first mobile entity, second mobile entity, and mobile communication device that send and receive the claimed data stream. We have, therefore, not considered the merits of such findings in our decision. 6