Ex Parte Coban et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12571092 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/571,092 0913012009
89320 7590 09/30/2016
Polansky & Associates, P,LLC
12600 Hill Country Blvd
Suite R-275
Austin, TX 78738
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abdulkerim L. Coban
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.
1052-0051 1367
EXAMINER
CHAN, RICHARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
ppolansky@patentwerks.net
admin@patentwerks.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABDULKERIM L. COBAN, ALESSANDRO PIOV ACCARI,
RAMIN KHOINI-POORFARD, and JAMES T. KAO
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
Technology Center 2600
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4--11, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.
Claims 12-20 were cancelled previously. The Examiner indicates that claim
3 contains allowable subject matter. Final Act. 12. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed December 20, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed April 2, 2014),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed February 4, 2014) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 27, 2013).
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to signal processors for radio
frequency (RF) receivers. Spec. i-f 1.
Claims 1 and 4 recite:
1. A signal processor for a radio frequency (RF) receiver,
compnsmg:
a first filter having an input for receiving an input signal,
and an output;
a first automatic gain control (AGC) loop having an input
coupled to said output of said first filter, and an output;
a second filter having an input coupled to said output of
said first AGC loop, and an output; and
a second AGC loop having an input coupled to said output
of said second filter, and an output;
wherein said first AGC loop and said second AGC loop
are independent of each another.
4. The signal processor of claim 1 wherein each of said
first and second filters comprises a lowpass filter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mi yo us 4,656,630 Apr. 7, 1987
Parssinen US 6,993,291 B2 Jan. 31, 2006
Ruelke US 7,203,476 B2 Apr. 10, 2007
Srinivasan US 7,548,738 B2 June 16, 2009
Beck US 2009/0209220 Al Aug. 20, 2009
2
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beck and Miyo. Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 2---6.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Parssinen. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 6-7.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Srinivasan. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 7-9.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Ruelke. Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 9-10.
ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and
4--11 are in error. App. Br. 5-19; Reply Br. 2---6. These arguments present
us with the following issues:
( 1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Beck teaches a "filter
having an input coupled to said output of said first AGC
loop," as recited in independent claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in finding that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Beck and Mi yo?
(3) Did the Examiner err by rejecting dependent claim 4 based
in part on Official Notice?
( 4) Did the Examiner err in finding that Parssinen teaches "a
mixer for providing said input signal having a spectrum
centered around a selected one of a low intermediate
frequency (LIP) or a zero intermediate frequency (ZIF),"
as recited in dependent claim 7?
( 5) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Beck and Miyo teaches "a plurality [of] gain elements
3
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
interspersed between pairs of said plurality of distributed
filters," as recited in independent claim 8?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 2
Claim 1 recites a signal processor for a radio frequency receiver
comprising "a first filter having an input for receiving an input signal, and an
output," "a first automatic gain control (AGC) loop having an input coupled
to said output of said first filter, and an output," and "a second filter having
an input coupled to said output of said first AGC loop, and an output."
Appellants argue that the output of Beck's AGC loop is not coupled to the
input of filter 104 because the output of Beck's AGC loop is coupled to
frequency converter 103, which "changes the output of low noise amplifier
102 by down-converting it in frequency ... and thus the input is isolated
from (not coupled to) the output of the alleged first AGC loop." App. Br.
5---6 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend that the Examiner
incorrectly interpreted the term "coupled" to mean "the transfer of energy
between circuit components," and instead should have interpreted it to mean
"the transfer of energy or signal information between circuit components."
Reply Br. 2-3. We are not persuaded of error by the Examiner.
The Examiner finds that Beck teaches "two separate automatic gain
control loops," namely a "First Loop with circuit elements '102, 103, 107,
and 108, "' and a "second automatic gain [control] loop compris[ing] circuit
elements '105, 109, [and] 110."' Final Act. 2; Ans. 10. As shown in Figure
1 of Beck, the output of frequency converter 103 is connected to filter 104.
Beck i-f 4, Fig. 1. Regardless of whether the Examiner's interpretation or
Appellants' proposed interpretation is correct, the output of the "First Loop"
4
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
in Beck as found by the Examiner is "coupled" to the input of filter 104. See
Final Act. 2; Ans. 10. Appellants' arguments are directed only to low noise
amplifier 102, first peak detector 107, and first automatic gain control 108,
and do not address adequately the Examiner's finding of a "First Loop"
consisting of those elements as well as frequency converter 103. See App.
Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner fails to provide sufficient
reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Beck and Miyo. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 4---6. According
to Appellants, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have added a first filter
to Beck's signal processor because the two references use different types of
filters, "there is no reason evident from Beck and Miyo why Beck's channel
selection filter does not provide adequate noise reduction," and Beck teaches
away from adding another filter because it is concerned with low power
consumption. App. Br. 6-9.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error by the Examiner.
The Examiner acknowledges that Beck's signal processor lacks a first filter
providing an output to the first AGC loop, but finds that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have had reason to add such a filter based on the
teachings of Miyo "to deliver a filtered signal into the automatic gain
amplifier loop to reduce the noise component." Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2-3;
see Miyo, col. 3, 11. 45-60 (describing band pass filter 33 with an output
connected to variable level adjusting or circuit means 34), Fig. 3. Appellants
do not explain sufficiently why the Examiner's reasoning for adding an
additional filter to Beck-to reduce the noise component-is incorrect.
Indeed, Appellants do not appear to dispute that adding a filter would result
5
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
in noise reduction, but argue (without support in the reference or otherwise)
that Beck's noise reduction is already "adequate." See App. Br. 9.
We also are not persuaded that Beck teaches away from adding
another filter simply because it expresses a desire for lower power
consumption. See id. (citing Beck i-f 15). "The fact that [a] motivating
benefit comes at the expense of another benefit ... should not nullify its use
as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of
another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another." Winner Int'! Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340,
1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Appellants do not explain sufficiently why the
incremental increase in power consumption from an additional filter would
negate or outweigh the Examiner's stated benefit of noise reduction. Rather,
we are persuaded that the Examiner provided sufficient "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness" for the combination of Beck and Miyo. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as dependent claim 2, which Appellants do not argue
separately. See App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--6.
Claims 4-6
Dependent claim 4 recites that "each of said first and second filters
comprises a lowpass filter." The Examiner takes Official Notice of this
limitation, stating that although Beck discloses "a low pass filter ...
implemented between the two signal processing elements in order to
determine the channel of the receiving signal, it would have been obvious to
6
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the low pass filter for each of
the circuit elements in order to remove any unwanted signal being processed
by the signal processing elements." Final Act. 5---6. Appellants contend that
the Examiner's analysis fails to provide a proper basis for taking Official
Notice of the disputed limitation. App. Br. 9--11. We agree with
Appellants.
Rather than taking notice of a well-known, undisputed fact, the
Examiner's Official Notice encompasses the entire limitation of claim 4.
Specifically, the Examiner has not explained what fact the Examiner is
taking Official Notice of. See Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner does not
explain sufficiently why it would have been so well-known, as to be capable
of instant and unquestionable demonstration, to implement a signal
processor with the specifically recited arrangement of first and second filters
where both filters are low pass filters. Further, as Appellants correctly point
out, the filter in Miyo that the Examiner relies on as teaching a "first filter"
is a band pass filter, not a low pass filter. See App. Br. 10; Miyo, col. 3,
11. 48-52 ("band pass filter 33"). The Examiner does not provide an
adequate explanation for taking Official Notice of using a low pass filter
instead.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
This issue is dispositive of the rejection of dependent claim 4, as well as
claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 4, and, accordingly, we need not
reach Appellants' remaining arguments pertaining to these claims. See App.
Br. 10-13.
7
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites that the signal processor further comprises
"a mixer for providing said input signal having a spectrum centered around a
selected one of a low intermediate frequency (LIP) or a zero intermediate
frequency (ZIF)." Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by ignoring a
limitation of claim 7. App. Br. 14. Specifically, the claim language requires
the "mixer" to provide "said input signal" that is received by the first filter;
thus, the claim requires "more than just operation at ZIF or LIP." Id.
Appellants contend that Parssinen fails to teach a mixer that provides a LIP
or ZIF input signal to a first filter. Id.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner relies on Parssinen as
allegedly teaching the limitation. Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7, 13-14 (citing
Parssinen, col. 4, 11. 59---65, Fig. 2). Parssinen discloses a radio receiver that
has a down-converting stage and "several intermediate frequencies."
Parssinen, col. 4, 11. 55---65. The Examiner, however, states only that
Parssinen teaches an "input signal ... characterized as having a spectrum
centered around a selected one of a low intermediate frequency (LIP) or a
zero intermediate frequency (ZIF)," without explaining how Parssinen
allegedly teaches a mixer that provides a LIP or ZIF input signal to a first
filter. See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 7.
Claims 8-11
Independent claim 8 recites "a plurality of distributed filters, wherein
a first one of said plurality of distributed filters receives an input signal, and
a last one of said plurality of distributed filters provides an output signal,"
8
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
and "a plurality [ otl gain elements interspersed between pairs of said
plurality of distributed filters." The Examiner finds that Beck's filter
combined with the filter of Miyo teaches the claimed distributed filters. See
Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5---6, 12-13. Appellants argue that the combination of
Beck and Mi yo fails to teach "a plurality [of] gain elements interspersed
between pairs of said plurality of distributed filters" because the rejection as
set forth by the Examiner only contains two filters---one each from Beck and
Miyo-----or one pair. App. Br. 11-12. According to Appellants, the claim
language "requires at least three distributed filters in which the input of the
last distributed filter is coupled to the last gain element of the plurality of
gain elements," and there is nothing in Beck or Miyo teaching the addition
of a third filter after the second AGC loop. Id.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner's rejection of claim 8 is
premised on incorporating Miyo's filter into Beck's receiver (which contains
a single filter) "to deliver a filtered signal into the automatic gain amplifier
loop to reduce the noise component." Final Act. 7. These two filters
together constitute a single pair of filters between which a gain element may
be interspersed. Claim 8, however, recites "pairs of said plurality of
distributed filters" between which "a plurality [of] gain elements" are
interspersed. Thus, as Appellants correctly point out, the claim requires at
least three distributed filters. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Beck and Mi yo teaches "a plurality [of] gain
elements interspersed between pairs of said plurality of distributed filters."
This issue is dispositive of the rejection of independent claim 8 and
the rejections of claims 9-11, which depend from claim 8.
9
Appeal2014-005417
Application 12/571,092
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 1 and 2 as being unpatentable over Beck and Miyo under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 4, 5, and 8 as being unpatentable over Beck and Miyo under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 6 and 7 as being unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Parssinen
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claim 9 as being unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Srinivasan under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 10 and 11 as being unpatentable over Beck, Miyo, and Ruelke
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and
2 is affirmed, and the Examiner's decision to reject claims 4--11 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10