Ex Parte Yehezkely et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2017

13312127 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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. 13/312,127 12/06/2011 Alon YEHEZKELY 146197USP1 1097 15055 7590 03/28/2017 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER QIN, ZHIREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2017 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): qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALON YEHEZKELY and SAGI KUPFERMAN Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 11—13, and 17—24.1 Claims 14—16 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a “radio frequency (RF) systems, and more particularly to partitioning of RF system modules.” (Spec. 12.) 1 Claims 7—10 are objected to by the Examiner (Final Act, Office Action Summary), and are therefore not before us on appeal. Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A radio frequency (RF) system, comprising: a plurality of antenna arrays for receiving and transmitting RF signals; and a plurality of RF sub-modules, wherein each RF sub- module of the plurality of RF submodules is configured to perform up conversions of intermediate frequency (IF) signals to generate RF signals for transmission, to perform down conversion of received RF signals to generate IF signals, and wherein the plurality of RF sub-modules control the plurality of antenna arrays to act as a single antenna array if the RF system operates in an expansion mode of operation, wherein each of the plurality of RF sub-modules is coupled to an antenna array of the plurality of antenna arrays, the plurality of RF sub-modules are chained to each other through a first transmission line, one of the plurality of RF sub-modules is coupled to a baseband module through a second transmission line, and each of the first transmission line and the second transmission line transfers a multiplexed signal, the multiplexed signal including an IF signal, a local oscillator (LO) signal, a control signal, and a power signal. C. REJECTIONS2 1. Claims 1—4, 6, 12, 13, and 17—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Carbone et al. (US 2012/0309325 Al, publ. Dec. 6, 2012) (“Carbone”), Rettig et al. (US 2010/0035561 Al, publ. Feb. 11, 2010) (“Rettig”), and Shi et al. (US 2011//0070900 Al, publ. Mar. 24, 2011) (“Shi”). 2 The Examiner also makes a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. (Final Act. 2). However, Appellants have filed a terminal disclaimer on Nov. 9, 2015 overcoming the Examiner’s double patenting rejection. 2 Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 2. Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the teachings of Carbone, Rettig, Shi, and Brumer et al. (US 2011/0273270 Al, publ. Nov. 10, 2011) (“Brumer”). II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Carbone, Rettig, and Shi teaches or would have suggested: “the plurality of RF sub-modules control the plurality of antenna arrays to act as a single antenna array if the RF system operates in an expansion mode of operation” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Carbone 1. Carbone discloses each of a plurality of RF modules may be coupled to a respective one of a plurality of antenna arrays. (Carbone 115). Shi 2. Shi discloses antenna components may be merged with one another, for example an antenna assembly where multiple arrays of antenna engage in beamforming. (Shi 1112). IV. ANAFYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that 3 Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend: Shi still fails to teach “the plurality of RF sub-modules control the plurality of antenna arrays to act as a single antenna array if the RF system operates in an expansion mode of operation” as recited in claim 1. In other words, Shi merely teaches that an RF receiver (RX) and an RF transmitter (TX) may be combined, which is not the same as a plurality of RF sub-modules controlling a plurality of antenna arrays to act as a single antenna array. (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, “while Shi teaches multiple arrays of antennas useful for antenna beamforming, Shi fails to teach a plurality of RF sub-modules controlling the multiple arrays of antennas to act as a single antenna array.” (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because Appellants are arguing Shi individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the Examiner cites to Carbone for teaching “plurality of RF sub- modules.” (Ans. 13—14; Final Act. 5—6, citing Carbone Fig. 2, 7, Tflf 83, 85). We agree with the Examiner reliance on Carbone’s plurality of RF modules coupled to respective plurality of antenna arrays to teach or at least suggest a “plurality of RF sub-modules” that “control the plurality of antenna arrays,” as recited in claim 1. (FF1). 4 Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 We further agree with the Examiner’s finding Shi’s multiple arrays of antennas configured for beamforming teaches or at least suggests “plurality of antenna arrays to act as a single antenna array,'1'’ as recited in claim 1. (FF2; Ans. 14). Moreover, on this record, Appellants have not provided any evidence that modifying Carbone’s system to include Shi’s antenna beamforming was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have Appellants presented evidence that the Examiner’s proffered incorporation of Shi’s beamforming in the same field of endeavor would have yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find Appellants’ invention is simply a modification of familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result. The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Accordingly, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of grouped claims 2-4, 6, 12, and 17—24, which are not separately argued. (App. Br. 7—11). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Rejection of Dependent Claim 13 Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 13, rejected under the same rejection as claim 1, Appellants argue claim 13 as submitted in their Brief (App. Br. 16) is allowable. (App. Br. 9—10). 5 Appeal 2016-006662 Application 13/312,127 However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of pending claim 13. As the Examiner points out, Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief are directed to the version of claim 13 filed on Oct. 2, 2015, after the Final Office action was mailed on Aug. 12, 2015, and was not entered by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 13 as pending. Rejection of Dependent Claims 5 and 11 We also sustain the Examiner’s separate rejection of dependent claims 5 and 11, which were not substantively, separately argued. (App. Br. 11). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 11—13, and 17—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6