Ex Parte Bruhns

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2016

12101078 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/101,078 04/10/2008
126187 7590
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
03/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas V. Bruhns
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.
10070076-01 7474
EXAMINER
CHEN, JUNPENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2016 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):
keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com
notice.legal@keysight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS V. BRUHNS
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 7 and 9. Claims 1-3, 10-
13, and 15-19 were withdrawn and claims 4-6, 8, and 14 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
WeAFFIRM.2
1 The real party in interest is Agilent Technologies Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed Apr. 15, 2013
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed Dec. 02, 2013 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed Oct. 04, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed Nov. 15,
2012 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed Apr. 10, 2008 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention relates to a band blocking filter, such as shown
in Figure 4, for attenuating an unwanted frequency component in a signal
having a plurality of frequency components. Spec. 3:26-27; Abstract.
Appellant's Figure 4 is reproduced below with additional markings, in
red, for illustration.
97
OUTPUT
INPUT
9"\
·.1 . . - ...'~,1.-.-.'..-.~1 .-~ ! DIGITAL ~
, ~J;A ~BAND .PASS (
I ! FILTER
~-----.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~
FIGtJRE 4
As shown in Figure 4, the band blocking filter (90) includes: (1) an
input port to receive an input signal having a plurality of frequency
components including a first frequency component at a frequency fb and
amplitude A; (2) a cancellation signal generator (95, 96) to generate a
cancellation signal having a frequency of fb and an amplitude and phase
determined by a first frequency component; and (3) a combining circuit (92)
to combine the cancellation signal with the input signal and generate an
output signal having a second frequency component and a residual signal at
frequency fb having an amplitude less than A. Spec. 3:30--4:6, 11 :3-6, Fig.
4.
2
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
Claims 7 and 9 are independent. Claim 9 is illustrative of Appellant's
invention, as reproduced below:
9. An apparatus comprising:
an input port that receives an input signal having a
plurality of frequency components including a first frequency
component at a frequency of fb, characterized by an amplitude,
A, and a second frequency component having a frequency of fg
that is different from fb;
a cancellation signal generator that generates a
cancellation signal having a frequency of fb, and an amplitude
and phase determined by said first frequency component; and
a combining circuit having a signal input that receives
said input signal and a cancellation signal input that receives
said cancellation signal, said combining circuit combining said
cancellation signal with said input signal to generate an output
signal on a combining circuit output line, said output signal
having said second frequency component and a residual signal
at frequency fb, having an amplitude less than A,
wherein said cancellation signal generator comprises a
band pass filter having a filter input and having a pass band that
includes fb and excludes fg; and
wherein said pass band has a center determined by a
signal input to said band pass filter other than fg.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x.) (disputed limitations in italics).
Examiner's Rejections
(1) Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tam (U.S. Patent 4,673,982; June 16, 1987). Final Act. 3-5.
(2) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tam and Saito (U.S. Publication 2006/0040625 Al; Feb.
23, 2006). Final Act. 6-7.
3
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
ANALYSIS
§ 102(b) Rejection of Claim 9 based on Tam
In support of the anticipation rejection of claim 9, the Examiner finds
Tam discloses a multiple frequency adaptive filter, shown in Figure IA,
including Appellant's claimed "cancellation signal generator" provided with
a "band pass filter having filter input and having a pass band" and that
Tam's "pass band has a center determined by a signal input to said band pass
filter other than fg" in the form of a negative feedback circuit 110 designed
as dual notch filters 120A-120B. Final Act. 2, 4-5 (citing Tam 2:57-68,
4:24-28, Fig. IA).
Tam's Figure IA is reproduced below with additional markings, in
red, for illustration.
Figure IA is a block diagram of an adaptive filter system
Appellant acknowledges Tam's negative feedback circuit 110 having
dual notch filters 120A-120B removes unwanted frequencies, i.e.,
interference signals. App. Br. 6. However, Appellant argues: (1) "the band
4
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
pass filter of Tam does not receive an input signal that determines the center
frequency of the filter other than wa" and (2) because Tam's dual notch
filters 120A-120B are required to correct phase and cancel two unwanted
frequencies, these notch filters cannot be separated from each other to meet
Appellant's claimed "band pass filter having a filter input and having a pass
band" recited in claim 9. App. Br. 6-7. According to Appellant, each of
these notch filters 120A-120B filters different components of an input
signal, i.e., in-phase components and quadrature components, and if only
one notch filter 120A or 120B is used, Tam's negative feedback circuit 110
does not filter unwanted signals at the other frequency. Reply Br. 1-2.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 7-9. As such, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional
emphasis, we note that Tam's adaptive filter system, shown in Figure IA,
functions as a narrow band-pass filter (see Tam 1 :52-54) and acts as a single
frequency (wo) Widrow's filter (see Tam 3:41--42). Moreover, Appellant's
claim 9 is broadly worded such that Appellant's claimed "band pass filter
having a filter input and having a pass band" wherein the "pass band has a
center determined by a signal input to said band pass filter" can be
reasonably interpreted to encompass Tam's "pass band centered at (wo + L1)
that is determined based on at least input signal a cos(L1t + 8)." Ans. 9.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 9.
5
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claim 7 based on Tam and Saito
Independent claim 7 differs from claim 9 essentially in that "a
unidirectional coupler" is further recited to block "signals traveling toward
said combining circuit output line from entering said filter."
The Examiner further relies on Saito for teaching the use of a well-
known "unidirectional coupler" to support the conclusion of obviousness,
i.e., "it would have been obvious ... to use an unidirectional coupler to
couple the signal to negative feedback circuit 110 from output of circuit 101
to avoiding any possible unwanted interference from other branch/side."
Final Act. 7 (citing Saito Fig. 7).
Appellant argues Saito does not teach a similar feedback circuit and
the Examiner has not articulated a reason to modify Tam's filter system to
include such a unidirectional coupler. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2.
We remain unpersuaded. Saito is not relied upon for disclosing a
similar feedback circuit; rather, Saito is relied upon for teaching the use of a
well-known circuit element, i.e., "unidirectional coupler." Ans. 9-10.
When a claimed invention "'simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We are persuaded by the Examiner's findings and reasons (see Ans. 9-10;
Final Act. 6-7) that merely incorporating the use of a unidirectional coupler
into Appellant's claimed filter arrangement would have been obvious to
those skilled in the art. For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 7.
6
Appeal2014-002443
Application 12/101,078
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 7 and
9.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7