Ex Parte Cutler

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

14014067 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/014,067 08/29/2013 Robert T. Cutler
126187 7590 06/01/2018
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
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.
20130210-01 1634
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
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 ROBERT T. CUTLER1
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Keysight ("Cutler") timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 The applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46, and hence the appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 134, is the real party in interest, identified as Keysight
Technologies, Inc. ("Keysight") (Appeal Brief, filed 8 March 2016
("Br."), 1.)
2 Office Action mailed 11 September 2015 ("Final Rejection"; cited as
"FR").
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
A. Introduction 3
OPINION
The subject matter on appeal relates to an apparatus (independent
claim 1) and a method of operating the apparatus (independent claim 8) for
measuring the noise contributed by a device under test ("DUT") to a circuit
of which the device is a part. (Spec. 1 [0001].) The '067 Specification
teaches that the noise factor for a device can be characterized by a voltage
gain and a noise power spectral density, NA. (Id.) Two difficulties, in
particular, are said to be encountered in making such measurements. First,
the measuring device will introduce noise contributions, which may be
compensated for by calibrations, but the calibrations are said to be time
consuming and to limit the accuracy of the DUT measurements.
(Id. at [0002].) Second, the measurements "may not accurately represent the
noise performance of the DUT in the actual circuit operating with
operational signals that are used with the real circuit." (Id.)
An embodiment of the claimed measuring apparatus is illustrated in
Figure 2, reproduced on the following page. DUT 12 is stimulated by signal
source 14, which introduces a frequency-dependent noise having a spectral
density Ns(f). DUT 12 has a gain AD(f), and introduces noise with a spectral
densityNA(f). (Id. at4 [0015].) The measuring apparatus ("receiver")
comprises two input channels, 21and22, which provide frequency-
dependent gains AR1, AR2, and frequency-dependent noise spectral densities
3 Application 14/014,067, Method and apparatus for estimating the noise
introduced by a device, filed 29 August 2013. We refer to the
"'067 Specification," which we cite as "Spec."
2
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
NR1 and NR2, respectively. (Id. at 5 [0017]; explicit frequency dependence
omitted for simplicity.) In the words of the Specification, "[b ]y measuring
the average values of the cross products of the frequency spectrums of the
two channels, such as the cross-correlation spectrums of the outputs of the
two channels in controller 25, the noise contributions ofNR1 and NR2 are
eliminated." (Id. at 5 [0017].)
{Figure 2 is shown below}
' i i·\ ..I...·,
.
..,_,_,_~···"''""·
t'·""'""'"'"""~•••rn•m••"
~
;
iN . ) I+\ '
14 !l s(l,~. ; l
. J '
I X(fl ·.~ I
L ....... "" ............. ~ ..................... l
21 ~
.,
FIGURE 2 Yl
25 CONTROLLER
{Figure 2 shows a diagram of the claimed DDT-measuring apparatus}
The two-channel method is said to eliminate the need for noise
calibration measurements, and to provide greater dynamic range than
methods that rely on power noise subtraction methods. (Id. at 6 [0019].)
Based on various cross products of the spectrums of the first and second
measurement channels (id. at 6 [0020]), the controller provides a measure of
3
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of a signal from the first DUT output that is
independent of the noise spectrums in the first and second measurement
channels (id. at 2 [0003]).
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
An apparatus for measuring a first DUT characterized by
a first DUT input,
a first DUT output,
a first DUT signal gain and
a first DUT noise spectrum introduced by that first DUT,
said apparatus comprising:
a first measurement channel that
generates a first measurement signal characterized by
a first gain and
a first noise spectrum introduced by that channel,
said first measurement channel being coupled to said
first DUT output;
a second measurement channel that generates a second
measurement signal characterized by
a second gain and a second noise spectrum introduced
by that channel,
said second measurement channel being coupled to said
first DUT output; and
a controller that measures an average value of a
cross product of frequency spectrums of said first
measurement signal and said second measurement signal
when an input signal is input to said first DUT input,
said controller providing a measure of a signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) of a signal leaving said first DUT output,
said measure being independent of said first noise
spectrum and said second noise spectrum.
(Claims App., Br. 11; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.)
4
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection4' 5 :
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) in view of
Chow. 6
B. Discussion
The Board's findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Cutler urges the Examiner erred harmfully in finding that Chow
describes an apparatus that measures an average value of a cross product of
frequency spectrums of first and second measurement signals of a DUT in
response to an input signal to the first DUT input. (Br. 4, 1st para.) Rather,
Cutler argues (id.), Chow teaches that "cross-correlation circuitry 32
performs the following cross-correlation ("x") functions on the noise
signals, (N(t)), for two channels, 'channel 1' 12 and 'channel 2' 14"
(Chow 3 [0036]).
The weight of the evidence supports Cutler. Snur(t), the DUT signal
to be measured, Ni(t), the noise on measurement channel 1, and
Mi(t) = Snur(t) + Ni(t), the measurement taken by channel 1, and the
corresponding values N2(t) and M2(t) for channel 2, as well as the correlation
function, Mi(t) x M2(t), are all explicitly dependent on time. (Id. at [0037]-
[0042].) In Chow's words, "[t]he FFT (fast Fourier transform) of
4 Examiner's Answer mailed 1 September 2016 ("Ans.").
5 Because this application was filed after the 16 March 2013, effective date
of the America Invents Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
6 Ka Ho Colin Chow, ATE to detect signal characteristics of a DUT, U.S.
Patent Application Publication 2013/0018613 Al (17 January 2013).
5
Appeal 2017-001104
Application 14/014,067
Snur x Snur will equal the power spectral density (PSD) of the DUT's
signal." (Id. at [0042].) Other frequency-dependent functions discussed by
Chow are the result of Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) of sample streams
coming from the measurement channels (id. at 3 [0043], first sentence) or
the result of computed discrete Fourier transforms of time-domain signals
(id. at 4 [0050-5 [0056]). As Cutler argues (Br. 5; Reply7 2), the Examiner
has not directed our attention to any credible evidence indicating that Chow
describes an apparatus that provides a noise spectrum of the channels, or of
an apparatus that measures the average value of the cross product of the
frequency spectrums of the first and second measurement signals as required
by the claims.
The Examiner makes no findings regarding the dependent claims that
cure the defects of the rejection of the independent claims.
We therefore reverse the appealed rejections.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
7 Reply Brief filed 24 October 2016 ("Reply").
6