Ex Parte Bashir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2015

12435405 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/435,405 0510512009
23494 7590 12/09/2015
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Imran Bashir
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TI-66836 3269
EXAMINER
CHENG, DIANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2015 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IMRAN BASHIR, ROBERT BOGDAN STASZEWSKI,
OREN ELIEZER, and MENG-CHANG LEE
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
Appellants' invention relates to system and associated methods
comprising a transmitter with a built-in mechanism for mitigating self-
interference caused by an amplitude modulated signal that uses a digitally
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
controlled delay between the circuit where the signal is generated and the
circuit where the signal is amplitude modulated. Spec. i-f 25, Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A system comprising a transmitter with a built-in self-
interference mitigation mechanism, wherein the transmitter
comprises:
a radio frequency (RF) oscillator operable to generate an RF
signal;
a phase detector coupled to the frequency oscillator operable to
detect a phase error between the RF signal and a reference
frequency signal and to output a corresponding phase error
signal;
a variable delay module coupled to receive the RF signal and
operable to output a delayed RF signal that is delayed by a
configurable time delay amount, wherein while a temperature
of the transmitter remains constant, the time delay amount
remains constant;
a power amplifier coupled to receive the delayed RF signal
being operable to produce an amplified delayed RF signal: and
a control module coupled to the variable delay module, wherein
the control module is configured in a calibration mode to
determine an optimal amount of delay for use in configuring the
variable delay module to force between an aggressing RF signal
from the transmitter and the RF signal, whereby frequency or
phase perturbations inflicted by the transmitter's signal to the
RF oscillator may be minimized.
Ravi
The Reference
US 2008/0037662 Al
2
Feb. 14,2008
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
The Rejections
1. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Ravi; and
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ravi.
OPINION
After having considered each of Appellants' contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we are persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error in the rejections. As will be seen, we need only
address independent claims 1, 11, and 21. Claims 1 and 11 require, inter
alia, that the time delay amount remains constant while a temperature of the
transmitter remains constant. Br. 24, 26 (Claims App'x). Claim 21
requires, inter alia, that the time delay amount remains constant during a
normal mode of operation while a temperature of the transmitter remains
constant. Id. at 2 7.
As is relevant to the issues on appeal, the Examiner finds Ravi
teaches tapped delay-lines 106A and 106B, which correspond to the
variable delay module coupled to receive the RF signal and operable to
output a delayed RF signal that is delayed by a configurable time delay
amount recited in claim 1 and the step of delaying the aggressing RF signal
by a configurable time delay amount recited in claims 11 and 21. Final Act.
2, 5. The Examiner further finds that "each of the delay units in 106A has a
set time delay amount that inherently remains constant with respect to the
temperature" when the temperature of the transmitter is constant. Id. at 2-
3, 5. In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that paragraph 35 of
3
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
Ravi discloses "a sample of situations where the elements within delay lines
106A and 106B are less sensitive to temperature variations. Thus, when the
temperature of the transmitter remains constant, the individual time delay
amounts within [the] delay lines ... would also remain constant because
they would be less sensitive to temperature variations." Ans. 18-19.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections should be reversed
because Ravi does not teach a variable delay module that operates in a
manner such that the time delay amount remains constant while the
temperature of the transmitter remains constant. Br. 14. Rather, argue
Appellants, the delay amount produced by Ravi's variable delay module is
"continually changing in response to phase selection signals." Id.
It is well-established that anticipation requires that every limitation of
the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single
prior art reference. In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
To establish inherency, the evidence must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference. In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268 (Fed. Cir.
1991)). It is the Examiner's burden to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation. In re King, 801F.2d1324, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner's analysis is not
sufficient to support a finding that Ravi anticipates claims 1, 11, and 21.
That is, although the Examiner identifies paragraph 3 5 as support for the
finding that Ravi inherently discloses that the time delay amount remains
constant while a temperature of the transmitter remains constant, the cited
portion of Ravi does not employ the constant time delay amount/constant
4
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
transmitter temperature terminology, and the Examiner fails to explain
adequately how Ravi's disclosure of some situations in which tapped delay-
lines 106A and 106B are less sensitive to temperature variations and result
in less degradation to the modulation quality, corresponds to the recited
constant time delay amount/constant transmitter temperature. The
Examiner, therefore, has not met the burden of establishing that the constant
time delay/constant transmitter temperature specified in independent claims
1, 11, and 21 is necessarily present in the variable delay module and method
of operation that Ravi discloses. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner relies on the findings underlying the anticipation
rejection of claim 16 over Ravi to support the obviousness rejection of
claim 17 over Ravi. Final Act. 7. As explained supra, we find that the
Examiner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that Ravi
inherently (or otherwise) discloses that the time delay amount remains
constant while a temperature of the transmitter remains constant. The
Examiner does not rely on additional references to cure Ravi's deficiency.
Accordingly, we also reverse the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
5
Appeal2013-006422
Application 12/435,405
cdc
REVERSED
6