ANALOG DEVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 28, 2020

2019004580 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2020)

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.
15/139,212 04/26/2016 Saeed Aghtar ADINC.311A 6239
110833 7590 12/28/2020
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
(ADIRE/ADINC/ADHIT)
2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2020 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SAEED AGHTAR
____________________

Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHHNY A. KUMAR, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–17, 19–21.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Analog Devices, Inc., as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 below is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:

1. A radio frequency (RF) communication system comprising:

two or more receiver slices configured to operate in
parallel with one another to process an RF input signal having a
bandwidth comprising a first sub-band and a second sub-band,
wherein the two or more receiver slices comprise:

a first receiver slice configured to down-convert
the RF input signal having the bandwidth, and to process
the first sub-band of the RF input signal and to generate a
first digital signal representing the first sub-band; and

a second receiver slice configured to down-convert
the RF input signal having the bandwidth, and to process
the second sub-band of the RF input signal and to
generate a second digital signal representing the second
sub-band, wherein the first sub-band and the second sub-
band are at least partially non-overlapping in frequency;

a clock generation circuit configured to generate one or
more clock signals configured to control timing of the two or
more receiver slices; and

a sub-band processing circuit configured to process a
plurality of digital signals generated by the two or more
receiver slices, wherein the plurality of digital signals comprise
the first digital signal and the second digital signal, and wherein
the sub-band processing circuit is configured to compensate for
harmonic folding based at least in part on adding the first digital
signal from the first receiver slice to the second digital signal
from the second receiver slice.

Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 142 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as being unpatentable over Lesellier (Amandine Lesellier, Study of
multichannel wideband receiver architectures, 1–108, Thesis
submitted Feb 2014, hereinafter “Lesellier”), Hanevich (et al. US
8,805,297 B2; iss. Aug. 12, 2014, hereinafter “Hanevich”) and in view
of Behera (Behera et al., US 2011/0306300 A1; pub. Dec. 15, 2011,
hereinafter “Behera”). Final Act. 3–9.

2. Claims 3, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lesellier, Hanevich, in view of Chang (Chang et al.,
US 2013/0170840 A1; pub. July 4, 2013, hereinafter “Chang”). Final
Act. 9–10.

3. Claims 6, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lesellier, Hanevich, Behera and in view of
Petersson (Petersson et al., US 2003/0171100 A1; pub. Sept. 11, 2003,
hereinafter “Petersson”). Final Act. 10–11.

4. Claim 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Lesellier, Hanevich, Behera and in view of Horibe (Horibe et al.,

2 We note the Examiner only lists claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13 as being
rejected on the “Office Action Statement” page of the Final Action. Final
Act. 3. Claim 14 is not listed as being rejected. We treat this as a
typographical error by the Examiner, because claim 14 is included in the
detailed statement of rejection, as shown on page 4 of the Final Action.
Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212

4
US 2004/0172148 A1; pub. Sept. 2, 2004, hereinafter “Horibe”).
Final Act. 11–12.

5. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Lesellier, Hanevich Behera, Chang and in view of
Jin (Jin et al., US 8,457,620 B2, hereinafter “Jin”). Final Act. 12–16.

6. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lesellier, Hanevich, Behera, Chang, Jin, and Horibe. Final Act. 16–
17.
ANALYSIS 3
Appellant contests the Examiner’s findings regarding the following
limitations, as recited in independent claim 1 “compensate for harmonic
folding based at least in part on adding the first digital signal from the first
receiver slice to the second digital signal from the second receiver slice.”
Claim 1.4 See Appeal Br. 22–24; Reply Br. 20, 21.
The Examiner finds the aforementioned limitations are principally
taught by Behara, at paragraphs 3, 9, 10, and 19. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6, 7.
In particular, the Examiner finds “Behera was cited to show that
signal from different slices can be mixed with respective oscillator signal
accordingly and sum to suppress harmonic folding (Behera [¶¶ 3, 9]).”
Ans. 6, 7.
Appellant argues, and we agree,

3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of dependent claim 5. Ans. 4.
4 Independent claims 14 and 17 recite similar subject matter.
Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212

5
However, the cited portions of Behera do not teach that
Behera’s signals are taken “from different slices” (receiver or
otherwise) as asserted by the Answer. Page 6 of the Final Office
Action does not, when relying on Behera, even assert that Behera
teaches “different slices” (receiver or otherwise) at all. Therefore,
Behera cannot be used to teach that Lesellier or Hanevich should be
modified to take signals “from different slices” and added together.

At best, one of ordinary skill in the art may have understood
Behera’s paragraphs [3] and [9] might to teach how to cancel
unwanted harmonics within a single slice using additional processing.
For example, as shown in Behera’s Figure 2, a waveform component
maybe split up, mixed with different oscillators, and then recombined
as described in [3] and [9]. But Figure 2 and paragraphs [3] and [9] of
Behera do not show multiple slices and therefore cannot be used to
teach “to compensate for harmonic folding based at least in part on
adding the first digital signal from the first receiver slice to the second
digital signal from the second receiver slice.”

Reply Br. 21.
We agree with Appellant’s interpretation of the disclosure of Behera.
Id. We conclude that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by the
combination of Lesellier, Hanevich, and Behera for the reasons set forth by
Appellant.
Accordingly, on this record, Appellant has persuaded us of error
regarding the obviousness rejection.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claim
1, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner
error.
Accordingly, as such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 14, and 17. Because we reverse the rejection of independent
claims 1, 14, and 17 on appeal, we also reverse the rejections of dependent
Appeal 2019-004580
Application 15/139,212

6
claims 2–4, 6–13, 15–17, and 19–21 that depend on claims 1, 14, or 17
respectively.

DECISION

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–17, and 19–21 is
reversed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

REVERSED  

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5,
10, 11,
13, 14
103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Behera
1, 2, 4, 5,
10, 11,
13, 14
3, 12, 16 103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Chang
3, 12, 16
6, 7, 15 103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Behera, Petersson
6, 7, 15
8, 9 103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Behera, Horibe
8, 9
17, 18 103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Behera, Chang, Jin
17, 18
19 103 Lesellier, Hanevich,
Behera, Chang, Jin,
Horibe
19
Overall
Outcome
1–17,
19–21