Ex Parte Dai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12467507 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/467,507 05/18/2009
24319 7590
Broadcom Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xingdong Dai
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.
Dai 13-1-10-9 8190
EXAMINER
HA,DACV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XINGDONG DAI, WENYI JIN,
MAX J. OLSEN, and GEOFFREY ZHANG
Appeal2014-008638
Application 12/467,507
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, and 15-23. 1 (App. Br. 3-8.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Claims 2 and 4--14 stand objected to as being dependent on a rejected base
claim. (Final Act. 6.)
Appeal2014-008638
Application 12/467,507
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to equalization circuitry. (Spec. 1.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
equalization circuitry implementing at least first and
second gam adaptation loops associated with respective first and
second frequency bands;
wherein the equalization circuitry is configured to identify
a pattern in a portion of a received serial data stream, and to
perform gain adaptation utilizing a particular one of the gain
adaptation loops responsive to the identified pattern.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Staszewksi et al. US 2003/0235262 Al Dec. 25, 2003
Furukawa et al. US 6,744,830 Bl Jun. 1, 2004
Shalash US 2007 /0243843 Al Oct. 18, 2007
Wong et al. US 8,175,143 Bl May 8, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 15-17, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Furukawa and Staszewski.
(Final Act. 2.)
Claims 3, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Furukawa, Staszewski, and Wong.
(Final Act. 4.)
2
Appeal2014-008638
Application 12/467,507
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Furukawa, Staszewski, and Shalash.
(Final Act. 5.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 15-17, and 20--22
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that, in Figure 5a
of Staszewski, the paths selected by tracking signals, TRK 1, TRK2, and
TRK3, for input to element 515 (and the corresponding paths in Figure 6)
teach or suggest the first and second gain adaptation loops recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 3---6; Ans. 2-3; Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellants argue that in each
figure all of the identified paths are part of a single loop and thus are not first
and second gain adaptation loops. (App. Br. 3---6; Reply Br. 2-3.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, and
Appellants have not disputed, Appellants' Specification refers to different
paths providing gain adaptation as different loops. (Ans. 3; Reply Br. 2-3.)
For instance, Appellants' Specification teaches that in the embodiment of
Figure 3, one gain adaption loop (the low frequency adaptation loop)
comprises LEQ 300, eye latch array 302, and LFEQ 304L. (Spec. 9.) A
second gain adaption loop (the high frequency adaptation loop) comprises
LEQ 300, eye latch array 302, and HFEQ 304H. (Id.) These loops are
distinguished by their paths, not by a lack of common components, for the
loops share LEQ 300 and eye latch array 302. (See Spec. Figure 3.)
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the paths established
by the signals TRKl, TRK2 and TRK3 in Figure 5a (and the corresponding
3
Appeal2014-008638
Application 12/467,507
paths in Figure 6) of Staszewski teach or suggest the recited first and second
gain adaptation loops. (Ans. 3.)
Appellants further argue that the Examiner relies on conclusory
assertions of obviousness when combining Furukawa and Staszewski. (App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.) We are not persuaded by this argument because the
Examiner sets forth articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning for
combining these references. The Examiner explains that Furukawa and
Staszewski are each directed to loop gain control that switches from one
frequency range to another. (Ans. 3.) Staszewski makes its loop gains in
multiple small increments, rather than in a single large jump, like Furukawa,
and therefore Staszewski offers a more accurate and finer adjustment than
Furukawa. (Id.) Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Staszewski's finer adjustment with Furukawa's
circuitry to achieve more accurate loop gain control. (Id.) Appellants have
not presented any persuasive evidence or arguments demonstrating error
with this rationale. (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.)
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 15-1 7 and
20, not separately argued. (App. Br. 3---6.)
Claims 3, 18, 19, and 23
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 3, 18, 19, and 23 as
for claim 1. (App. Br. 8.) Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims
3, 18, 19, and 23.
Claims 21 and 22
For claims 21 and 22, Appellants repeat their arguments for claim 1.
(App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.) In addition, Appellants argue that because
Staszewski discloses only one gain adaptation loop, Staszewski also fails to
4
Appeal2014-008638
Application 12/467,507
teach or suggest "a second gain adaptation element separate from the first
gain adaptation element" as recited in claim 21 and "at least a portion of the
first circuitry being distinct from the second circuitry and at least a portion
of the second circuitry being distinct from the first circuitry" as recited in
claim 22. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.) As discussed above, we are not
persuaded that Staszewski discloses only a single gain adaptation loop.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 21 and 22.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 15-23.
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
5