Ex Parte Elend

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

13273150 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/273, 150 10/13/2011
65913 7590 07/01/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernd Elend
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.
81405616US02 9637
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, JAISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERND ELEND
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
Technology Center 2600
Before MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 16.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is NXP B.V. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 15 has been cancelled. App. Br. 19. Claims 17 and 18 are objected
to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but the Examiner stated
they would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 9.
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
fNVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to a communications device with
adaptive clock frequency. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. A communications device, comprising:
a clock circuit for generating a clock signal, and
comprising an on-chip circuit which defines a time constant
which governs the oscillator frequency, wherein the frequency is
tuneable;
a receiver for receiving messages using the clock signal;
a controller adapted to:
determine an error rate of received messages; and
in response to an error rate exceeding a threshold,
vary the clock signal frequency thereby to lower the error
rate.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--8, 10-14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Cranford Jr. et al. (US
2007/0061665 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007) and Perrott (US 2005/0147197
Al; published July 7, 2005).
Claims 2, 3, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Cranford, Perrott, and Moller et al.
(US 5,084,685; issued Jan. 28, 1992).
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
2
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Cranford teaches or
suggests the limitations recited in claim 1 except for comparing the error rate
with a threshold and varying the clock signal frequency accordingly. Final
Act. 4 (citing Cranford Fig. 2). The Examiner finds that Perrott teaches
comparing the error rate to a threshold and varying the frequency of the
oscillator based on the comparison. Id. (citing Perrott i-fi-f 130-131).
Appellant contends the cited portions of Cranford do not disclose "an
on-chip circuit which defines a time constant which governs the oscillator
frequency." App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that Cranford's disclosure of a
variable sampling clock is insufficient to teach a time constant that governs
the oscillator frequency, as claim 1 requires. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that the control signal that controls
the oscillator frequency in Cranford teaches or suggests the recited "time
constant," and that Cranford teaches that the control signal output from
component 21 in Figure 2 controls the frequency of oscillator 23 via loop
filter 22. Ans. 4.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellant argues in a conclusory manner in the Reply Brief that, even if
Cranford teaches what the Examiner finds it does, Cranford still does not
teach the disputed claim limitation. Reply 4. Appellant, however, presents
no persuasive explanation or evidence regarding how the control signal
output from the component 21 in Figure 2 of Cranford differs from the
3
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
recited "time constant." 3 See id. The Examiner does not contend, nor is the
Examiner required to demonstrate, that the identical text of rejected claim 1
appears in the cited references. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
Appellant also contends the cited portions of Perrott do not disclose
the limitation "in response to an error rate exceeding a threshold, vary the
clock signal frequency thereby to lower the error rate," recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 14. Appellant argues that, even if Perrott teaches varying some
frequencies in the process of reacquiring a lock, the cited portions do not
suggest "varying clock signal frequency." Id. at 15 (citing Perrott i-f 130).
In response, the Examiner explains that it is well known in the art that
a phase-locked loop (PLL) reacquires a lock by adjusting the frequency
and/or phase of the signal. Ans. 5. The Examiner further explains that it is
well known in the art that a voltage controlled oscillator (VCO) in the PLL
changes the frequency of the output clock signal. Id.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. In the
Reply Brief, Appellant does not address the Examiner's explanation or
present any persuasive explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's
findings. See Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellant further contends the Examiner fails to provide articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. App. Br. 15. We disagree. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify the oscillator
3 We observe that Appellant's Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
identifies only paragraph 13 of the Specification as describing the limitations
of claim I. App. Br. 7. Paragraph 13, however, merely states the language
recited in claim 1. See Spec. i-f 13.
4
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
disclosed in Cranford to vary the signal based on a comparison to a
threshold, as disclosed in Perrott, "to reduce the oscillator complexities."
Final Act. 6; Ans. 3. We find the Examiner provides persuasive articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have
made the modification. Cranford explains that "determining whether and
which of the sampled received data is wrong, and for generating out of it a
phase/frequency correction signal ... [and] generating the sampling clock
depending on the correction signal" reduces that complexity of the circuit.
Cranford i-f 10. In paragraph 131, cited by the Examiner, Perrott teaches
advantages of comparing bit error rates to threshold counts when
determining and providing an indication of actual bit error rates. Perrott i-f
31. We also observe that Perrott teaches that acquiring a clock signal from
input data "would both save pins on the clock and data recovery integrated
circuit and release the system from the cost and design complexity of having
to supply a reference clock." Perrott i-f 8.
For these reasons, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cranford and Perrott
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 8, which Appellant argues is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 15. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16, for which Appellant makes no
additional arguments. Id.
5
Appeal2014-007886
Application 13/273,150
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14 and 16.
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
6