Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01804/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Saucon Technologies
Appellee
Saucon Technologies, Inc.
Appellee
Bijan Tadayon
Appellant
Saied Tadayon
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAIED TADAYON, BIJAN TADAYON,

Appellants

v.

SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1804

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 95/001,644.

______________________ 

Decided: May 11, 2015

______________________ 

SAIED TADAYON, Potomac, MD, pro se.

BIJAN TADAYON, Potomac, MD, pro se.

SANFORD J. PILTCH, Allentown, PA, for appellee. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, LINN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Drs. Saied and Bijan Tadayon (the “Tadayons”) appeal from the decision of the United States Patent and 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/11/2015
2 TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES

Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(“Board”) in an inter partes reexamination initiated by 

Saucon Technologies, Inc. (“Saucon”), affirming the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 11–15, and 25 of the 

Tadayons’ U.S. Patent 7,031,657 (the “’657 patent”) as 

obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006).* See Saucon Techs., 

Inc. v. Tadayon, No. 2014-002491, 2014 WL 2466138 

(P.T.A.B. May 30, 2014) (“Opinion”). Because the Board 

did not err in affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 

1, 2, 11–15, and 25 of the ’657 patent, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The Tadayons own the ’657 patent, which is directed 

to a method and system for reducing the power absorbed 

by the body of a user of a wireless communication device. 

’657 patent col. 3 ll. 43–47. In one embodiment, the 

system has multiple antennas for transmission and 

reception over multiple stages. Id. col. 3 ll. 48–49. A first 

antenna, closest to the user, operates with extremely low 

power for short distances. Id. col. 4 ll. 29–31. The first 

antenna communicates with a second antenna, which 

operates at a distance from the user and transmits the 

data to a base station at a relatively high power. Id. col. 4 

ll. 31–32. Independent claim 1 of the ’657 patent is directed to the invention’s receive mode of operation and 

reads as follows:

1. A system for mobile or wireless communication 

or computation, said system comprising:

first unit comprising first antenna, wherein 

said first unit is mobile or wireless;

* Because the application of the ’657 patent was 

filed before March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America 

Invents Act version of § 103 applies. See Pub L. No. 112-

29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). 

 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/11/2015
TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES 3

last unit comprising last antenna, wherein 

said last unit is mobile or wireless; and

said first unit receives data from said last 

unit, wherein said data is transmitted from said 

last antenna to said first antenna,

wherein said last unit receives said data from 

a location outside said system,

wherein said data is transmitted from said location outside said system to said last antenna,

wherein transmission of said data between 

said first antenna and said last antenna is done at 

first frequency, and

transmission of said data between said last 

antenna and said location outside said system is 

done at second frequency,

wherein said second frequency is different 

than said first frequency,

wherein said first frequency is chosen from a 

range of frequency which corresponds to a low radiation power absorption for a specific tissue or 

part of human body, or which corresponds to a low 

overall radiation power absorption for whole body 

of a human or a specific animal, and

wherein transmission of said data between 

said first antenna and said last antenna is done at 

first power, and

transmission of said data between said last 

antenna and said location outside said system is 

done at second power,

wherein said second power is different than 

said first power, wherein said second power is 

larger than said first power. 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/11/2015
4 TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES

Id. col. 7 l. 47–col. 8 l. 13 (emphases added). Independent 

claim 2 is similar to claim 1, but directed to the transmit 

mode of operation. Id. col. 8 ll. 14–48. Claims 11–15 and 

25 depend from independent claim 2. Id. col. 9 ll. 1–28, 

col. 10, ll. 39–40. 

In June 2011, Saucon filed a request for inter partes 

reexamination of claims 1, 2, 11–15, and 25 of the ’657

patent, which the PTO granted. J.A. 3170. The Examiner adopted Saucon’s proposed rejections of claims 1, 2, 11–

15, and 25 under § 103 based on combinations of: (1)

Martin van der Zee et al., “Quality of Service in Bluetooth 

Networking, Part I,” Mar. 1, 2001 (“van der Zee”); (2) 

Specification of the Bluetooth System v1.0 B, Dec. 1, 1999 

(“Bluetooth Specification”); (3) “New Developments in 

Wireless Technologies,” Talk of the Nation/Science Friday, June 23, 2000 (“Science Friday transcript”); and (4) 

other prior art. The Tadayons appealed to the Board.

On appeal, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 11–15, and 25 under § 103. Opinion at 

*1. The Board first addressed the Tadayons’ argument 

that the Examiner misconstrued the “second power” 

limitation in claim 1 by confusing the claim 1 limitation 

that the last unit receive data from a location outside the 

system with the claim 2 limitation that conversely requires that the last unit transmit data to a location outside the system. Id. at *5. The Tadayons argued that 

none of the cited references disclosed a “second power,” or 

a power associated with the transmission of data from a 

location outside the system, as recited in claim 1. Id. In 

response, the Board found that van der Zee teaches “the 

level of power required to transmit data from the last unit 

to outside the system (e.g., from a cellular phone to a 

mobile base station) relative to the level of power required 

to transmit data between the first and last units (i.e., 

Bluetooth transmissions).” Id. at *6. The Board reasoned 

that “if a certain power level is required for the cellular 

phone to transmit data to the base station, it follows that 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/11/2015
TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES 5

at least the same order of power level would be required 

to transmit data in the opposite direction from the base 

station to the cellular phone.” Id. Because van der Zee 

teaches that the power level of Bluetooth is significantly

lower than the transmit power of current cellular phones, 

the Board found that “one of ordinary skill in the art 

would reasonably understand that the power level of

Bluetooth is likewise lower than the power at which the 

mobile base station transmits to the cellular phone.” Id. 

Thus, the Board concluded that van der Zee teaches the 

“second power,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at *7.

The Board next addressed the Tadayons’ argument 

that none of the references taught the limitation of frequency-based low power absorption, as required by claims 

1 and 2. Id. at *9. In view of the various methods disclosed in the specification for a frequency to be deemed to 

correspond to a low radiation power absorption, the Board 

found that a first frequency can be deemed to be “‘chosen 

from a range of [frequencies] which correspond[] to a low 

radiation power absorption’ . . . if the range of frequencies 

from which the first frequency is chosen [is] such that the 

frequency enables communication between the first and 

last units at some power level that is lower than some 

objective baseline power level.” Id. at *12. Based upon 

that interpretation of the claim language, the Board found 

that the limitation of frequency-based low power absorption, as required by claims 1 and 2, was taught by the 

Science Friday transcript. Id.

The Board also addressed the Tadayons’ argument

that circumstances exist in which a cellular phone transmission power level might be the same as or lower than 

the power level of conventional Bluetooth transmissions. 

Id. at *13. The Board accepted the Tadayons’ premise 

that those situations exist, but nevertheless found that 

“the relevant inquiry is whether the cited prior art teaches or suggests at least one operating condition that does 

satisfy the claim limitation.” Id. Thus, because evidence 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/11/2015
6 TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES

exists that under some normal operating conditions 

cellular phones will transmit to base stations at power 

levels that are greater than the power levels of conventional Bluetooth communications, the Board concluded

that the prior art was correctly applied. Id. Accordingly, 

the Board affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject

claims 1, 2, 11–15, and 25 under § 103.

The Tadayons timely appealed to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo, 

In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. 

NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). Obviousness is a question of law based on several underlying factual findings,

In re Baxter, 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, Rapoport v. Dement, 254 

F.3d 1053, 1060–61 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

During reexamination, the Board construes disputed 

limitations according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, 

we review the Board’s claim construction de novo because 

the intrinsic record fully determines the proper construction, and the Board’s construction was not based on 

extrinsic evidence. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, 

Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).

The Tadayons argue that the Board made three errors: (1) the Board erred in construing the frequencybased low power absorption claim limitation in claims 1 

and 2 and in determining that the limitation is disclosed

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/11/2015
TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES 7

by the prior art; (2) the Board misconstrued the “second 

power” limitation in claim 1, and the prior art fails to 

teach a “second power” for transmitting from outside the 

system, as correctly construed; and (3) the Board misapplied facts regarding the operation of Bluetooth transmissions and cellular phones.

In response, Saucon argues that: (1) substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that the cited 

references teach the frequency-based low power absorption feature of claims 1 and 2; (2) substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s conclusion that the prior art teaches 

the “second power” limitation from claim 1; and (3) the 

Board correctly considered the operation of Bluetooth 

devices and cellular phones during active transmission.

We agree with Saucon that the Board did not err in 

affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 11–15, 

and 25 of the ’657 patent. First, substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches 

“wherein said first frequency is chosen from a range of 

[frequencies] which correspond[] to a low radiation power 

absorption for a specific tissue or part of human body,” as

recited in claims 1 and 2. As an initial matter, the specification of the ’657 patent fails to explicitly define what 

constitutes a “low radiation power absorption.” As a 

result, the Board found, and we agree, that a first frequency can be chosen from a range of frequencies that

correspond to a low radiation power absorption if the

frequency is chosen from a range of frequencies that 

enable communication between the first and last units at 

some power level that is lower than some objective baseline power level. In other words, if the baseline power 

level is the level at which a cellular phone operates, a 

frequency may be deemed to correspond to “a low radiation power absorption” if the selected frequency allows 

communication that produces a much smaller dose of 

radiation than that produced by a cellular phone. 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/11/2015
8 TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES

As construed, and as the Board found, the frequencybased low power absorption limitation is taught by the 

Science Friday transcript, which teaches choosing a 

frequency that would minimize absorption of radiation. 

More specifically, the Science Friday transcript teaches 

that the radiation of the Bluetooth, which operates in the 

“2.4-gigahertz ISM band,” J.A. 2673, “is so minimal, 

much, much, much smaller than radiation that gets sent 

and received by the cell phone, that you are, in fact, 

putting less radiation in the area of your head . . . ,” J.A. 

2674. Thus the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches 

the frequency-based power absorption limitation in claims 

1 and 2 is supported by substantial evidence.

The Board’s finding that van der Zee discloses the 

“second power” from claim 1 is also supported by substantial evidence. Claim 1 requires that the transmission of

data between said last antenna and said location outside 

said system is done at a second power, “wherein said 

second power is different than said first power, [and] 

wherein said second power is larger than said first power.” ’657 patent col. 8 ll. 11–13. As the Board found, van 

der Zee teaches the relationship between the level of 

power required to transmit data from a cellular phone to 

a base station and the level of power required to transmit 

data from a Bluetooth transmitter to a cellular phone. 

J.A. 3832; see also Opinion at *6. One of ordinary skill in 

the art would understand that if a certain power level 

would be required to transmit data to the base station, at 

least the same order of power level would be required to 

transmit data in the opposite direction, i.e., from the base 

station to the cellular phone. And because van der Zee 

teaches that the “power level of Bluetooth is significantly 

lower than the transmit power of current cellular phones,”

J.A. 3832, one of ordinary skill in the art would also 

understand that the power level at which the base station 

transmits to the cellular phone (or the “second power”) is 

significantly higher than the power level of Bluetooth. 

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/11/2015
TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES 9

See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[A] 

prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to 

those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citation omitted). As a 

result, the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches the 

“second power” from claim 1 is supported by substantial 

evidence. 

The Tadayons also argue that circumstances exist in 

which a cellular phone transmission power level might be 

the same as or lower than the power level of conventional 

Bluetooth transmissions. That argument is unavailing 

because, although the Board accepted the Tadayons’ 

premise that those situations exist, van der Zee still 

discloses that under normal active operating conditions 

cellular phones will transmit to base stations at power 

levels that are greater than the power level of conventional transmissions. See, e.g., In re Inland Steel Co., 265 

F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The fact that [a prior 

art reference] teaches that [a second step] in addition to [a 

first step] produces optimal results does not negate [the 

reference's] additional teaching that [the first step] is 

effective even in [the absence of the second step.]”)

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

conclude that claims 1, 2, 11–15, and 25 of the ’657 patent

would have been obvious in view of the cited references 

and therefore affirm the decision of the Board.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1804 Document: 51-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/11/2015