Ex Parte Allpress et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

13349132 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
13/349,132 01/12/2012 Stephen Allpress 326903US 3501
102469 7590 01/30/2017
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
P.O. Box 832570
Richardson, TX 75083
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN ALLPRESS, EDWARD ANDREWS,
SIMON HUCKETT, LAOLU LIJOFI, JONATHAN PETER LUCAS,
CARLO LUSCHI, and SIMON NICHOLAS WALKER
Appeal 2016-005769
Application 13/349,132
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-005769
Application 13/349,132
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claims
Independent claim 1, copied below, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal:
1. A method of processing an input signal received
over a channel of a wireless network at an apparatus comprising
a plurality of receiver processing means, each receiver
processing means being for processing the input signal to
generate an output signal in which an effect of the channel on the
received input signal is diminished, the method comprising:
repeatedly selecting, one receiver processing means at a
time, each one of the plurality of receiver processing means to
perform said processing of the input signal for a respective time
interval thereby generating a plurality of output signals, wherein
said repeatedly selecting each one of the plurality of receiver
processing means includes selecting a previously unselected
receiver processing means;
comparing a respective quality measure of each of the
plurality of output signals; and
controlling the respective time intervals of the plurality of
receiver processing means in dependence upon said comparison
of the quality measures of the output signals, such that the
respective time interval for one of the receiver processing means
which generates the output signal having the quality measure
indicating the highest quality is longer than the respective time
intervals of the other receiver processing means.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-005769
Application 13/349,132
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Yeo1 and one or more of Luschi,2 Ban,3 Nakayama,4 Kent,5 Horibe,6
and Drugge.7 See Final Act. 3—21.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding that Yeo teaches or
suggests “said repeatedly selecting each one of the plurality of receiver
processing means includes selecting a previously unselected receiver
processing means,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue the
cited disclosures of Yeo do not teach “selecting a previously unselected
receiver processing means,” but instead merely teach selecting an optimal
receiver processing means based on various channel parameters of a
previously selected receiver processing means. See Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that Yeo teaches this limitation with its
disclosures of (1) initially selecting either a rake receiver or an equalizer
receiver at power-on (the initial start-up state) and (2) after a specific time
interval, selecting the other receiver (which was previously unselected at
power-on) as the optimal receiver based on Signal to Noise Ratio , Doppler
Frequency, or modulation of received signal. See Ans. 3 (citing Yeo Figs. 1,
1 Yeo et al. (US 2010/0303141 Al; published Dec. 2, 2010) (“Yeo”).
2 Luschi et al. (US 2009/0110036 Al; published Apr. 30, 2009) (“Luschi”).
3 Ban et al. (US 2010/0142609 Al; published June 10, 2010) (“Ban”).
4 Nakayama et al. (US 2010/0226465 Al; published Sept. 9, 2010)
(“Nakayama”).
5 Kent et al. (US 2006/0072691 Al; published Apr. 6, 2006) (“Kent”).
6 Horibe et al. (US 2005/0180298 Al; published Aug. 18, 2005) (“Horibe”).
7 Drugge et al. (US 2011/0002283 Al; published Jan. 6, 2011) (“Drugge”).
3
Appeal 2016-005769
Application 13/349,132
3; 6, 14—16, 31, 58, 59, 61, 63); Final Act. 4. Appellants do not
substantively dispute the Examiner’s findings of fact regarding the
operations disclosed in Yeo. In fact, Appellants acknowledge that “it is
possible that an optimal receiver may happen to be the previously unselected
receiver processing means at some point in time,” but Appellants argue that
“is not necessarily the case” and the Examiner’s rejection relies on “mere
probabilities and possibilities.” Br. 8 (quoting MPEP § 2121 regarding
inherency).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner’s rejection does not
rely on probabilities, possibilities, or the doctrine of inherency. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Yeo expressly teaches the disputed limitation
with the disclosure of selecting a receiver upon powering-on and thereafter,
changing from the initially selected receiver to the initially unselected
receiver. See Ans. 3 (citing Yeo Fig. 3, H 61, 63); Final Act. 4. Indeed, the
Examiner finds, and Appellants acknowledge, that normal operation of
Yeo’s apparatus would satisfy the disputed limitation “at some point in
time” (Br. 8), for example, the first time Yeo’s two-receiver apparatus
switches from the initially selected receiver to the other, previously
unselected receiver (see Ans. 3 4). The Examiner’s findings are consistent
with the claim’s plain language read in light of Appellants’ Specification,
which describes a two-receiver embodiment like that of Yeo. See Spec. 121
(“In some embodiments, there are only two receiver processing means
implemented in the apparatus, i.e. a first receiver processing means and a
second receiver processing means. In these embodiments, the two receiver
processing means may be alternately selected for respective first and second
time intervals.”).
4
Appeal 2016-005769
Application 13/349,132
Even if, as Appellants acknowledge, the cited prior art only meets all
of the elements of claim 1 at some point in time, “combinations of prior art
that sometimes meet the claim elements are sufficient to show obviousness.”
Unwired Planet, LLCv. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
accord Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (“[A] prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies
a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.”); see
also Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp.,
55 F.3d 615, 622—623 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A]n accused product that
sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless
infringes.”). Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 1.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings,
conclusions, and reasoning for the rejection of claim 1, consistent with the
analysis above. See Final Act. 3—6; Ans. 2—3. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 16, 21,
and 22, and dependent claims 2—15 and 17—20, which were not argued
separately with particularity beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1.
See Br. 8-12.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b).
AFFIRMED
5