Ex Parte Bellaouar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

14134522 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/134,522 12/19/2013
102469 7590 05/29/2018
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abdellatif Bellaouar
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.
IR-13-0357-USl 4548
EXAMINER
JACKSON, BLANE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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
Exparte ABDELLATIF BELLAOUAR1
Appeal2017-010578
Application 14/134,522
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, NVIDIA Corporation, which, according to the
Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010578
Application 14/134,522
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a radio frequency
circuit having an NMOS device connected to a signal mixer. Spec. ,r 24,
Abstract. 2 Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A radio frequency (RF) circuit, comprising:
a receive path configured to receive an input signal; and
a low noise amplifier having multiple separate input stages
and multiple separate output stages, each input stage having
multiple separate input paths, wherein:
each separate input path is configured to be
separately activated and connected to one of the output
stages;
each separate output stage is configured to be
separately activated and connected to a signal mixer that
provides signal demodulation of the input signal
employing aggregation of carriers corresponding to intra-
band or inter-band signals; and
first NMOS devices are configured to isolate each
of the multiple separate input stages from each other and
connect each of the multiple separate input stages to one
of the signal mixers connected to each of the multiple
separate output stages, wherein a drain of the first NMOS
devices is directly coupled to the signal mixers.
2 This Decision refers to: ( 1) Appellant's Specification filed December 19,
2013 (Spec.); (2) the Non-Final Office Action (Non-Final Act.) mailed July
21, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed January 23, 2017; (4) the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed June 9, 2017; and (5) the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed August 9, 2017.
2
Appeal2017-010578
Application 14/134,522
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being
anticipated by Tasic (US 2013/0316670 Al; published Nov. 28, 2013).
Non-Final Act. 3-8.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ANALYSIS
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings, arguing the
Examiner erred in finding Tasic discloses "a drain of the first NMOS
devices is directly coupled to the signal mixers," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claim 13. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically,
Appellant argues "a 'directly coupled' drain of a first NMOS device to a
mixer means that there is no other element between the drain of the first
NMOS device and mixer," but Tasic discloses a "load circuit 670 ... located
between Tasic's first NMOS device (cascode transistors 664) and Tasic's
signal mixers (mixers 592/594)" (Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis omitted), 4; App.
Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Tasic's load circuit directly couples NMOS
cascode transistors to signal mixers, disclosing "a drain of the first NMOS
devices is directly coupled to the signal mixers." Ans. 2-3; Non-Final
Act. 4. The Examiner correctly finds (Ans. 2) that Tasic's "[l]oad circuit
670b includes a transformer 672b having (i) a primary coil 674b coupled
between the drains of cascode transistors 664c and 664d and ... (ii) a
3
Appeal2017-010578
Application 14/134,522
secondary coil 676b providing a differential second output RF signal" to
signal mixers (Tasic ,r 49 ( emphasis added), Fig. 6). That is, the Examiner
finds Tasic's transformer coils "directly couple[]" the cascode transistors'
drains to the mixers. In another embodiment identified by the Examiner
(Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 3), Tasic discloses "a load circuit may include an
inductor ... couplecf' between the cascode transistor drains and the mixers
(Tasic ,r 50 (emphasis added)). That is, the Examiner finds Tasic's cascode
transistor drain and mixer are directly coupled via inductive coupling.
Ans. 3.
Neither the claims nor the Specification define "directly coupled" and
the Specification does not even mention "directly coupled" elements.
Rather, the Specification discloses devices are "coupled ... via [an]
inductor" (Spec. ,r 27), i.e., an inductor provides the coupling of elements.
As such, in light of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner's broad
but reasonable interpretation that inductive coupling via transformer coils or
an inductor provides "direct[] coupl[ing]" of cascode transistors to mixers.
Ans. 2-3.
Furthermore, while not necessary to reach our decision, even under
Appellant's unduly narrow interpretation of "directly coupled" (Reply Br. 2,
4), the Examiner identifies an embodiment in Tasic that discloses "a drain of
the first NMOS devices is directly coupled [to] the signal mixers" (Ans. 3).
In particular, the Examiner identifies (id.) an embodiment in Tasic in which
"cascode transistors may provide the output RF signals at their drains"
(Tasic ,r 50). And, as the Examiner points out (Non-Final Act. 3--4), Tasic
discloses that signal "mixer 592a receives a first output RF signal" (Tasic
,r 42, Fig. 5). As such, even under Appellant's narrow interpretation, Tasic
4
Appeal2017-010578
Application 14/134,522
discloses that its cascode transistor drains are "directly coupled" to mixers
because Tasic's mixers specifically receive "output RF signals" (Tasic ,r 42)
and Tasic's cascode transistor drains provide those "output RF signals"
(Tasic ,r 50). Appellant does not address this embodiment of Tasic, which
discloses cascode transistors providing output RF signals for mixer input
(see Reply Br. 3--4; see also App. Br. 6-7), and so does not persuade us the
Examiner erred in finding Tasic discloses "a drain of the first NMOS
devices is directly coupled to the signal mixers," even under Appellant's
proffered interpretation of "directly coupled."
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Tasic discloses the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 13 and
claims 2-12 and 14--20, not separately argued (see App. Br. 8). Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) for
anticipation by Tasic.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5