Ex Parte Hung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613101419 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/101,419 05/05/2011 46368 7590 06/01/2016 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent 400 W MAPLE RD SUITE 350 BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009 Liang Hung 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. 67108-391PUS1; 807719 4975 EXAMINER V ARNDELL, ROSS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): ptodocket@cgolaw.com cgolaw@yahoo.com ipsnarocp@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIANG HUNG and MICHAEL HODGETTS Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 1 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 Invention The claims are directed to a wireless communication device with a plurality of amplifiers each providing an output signal which are combined after signal correction. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A wireless communication device, comprising: a combiner; a plurality of amplifiers that provide respective output signals that are combined by the combiner into a combined signal; and a pre-distortion processor configured to provide signal correction for the amplifiers, the pre-distortion processor receiving feedback based upon the output signals before the output signals are combined into the combined signal. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: J ohannisson Jackson Kl eider US 2002/0168949 Al US 2004/0227570 Al US 2011/0074506 Al Rejections Nov. 14, 2002 Nov. 18, 2004 Mar. 31. 2011 Claims 1-8 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson and Kleider. Claims 9, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson, Kleider, and Johannisson. 2 Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the Examiner did not explain how Kleider' s feedback mechanism could be incorporated into Jackson's system and method for purposes of arriving at a result consistent with Appellants' claims. App. Br. 3. Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because there is no reason or benefit for the proposed combination. App Rr. 3, 7; Reply Rr. 1, 7. Appellants further contend the Examiner erred because the proposed combination does not teach feedback in a manner consistent with how feedback is recited in Appellants' claims. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 4. Finally, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims because the proposed combination cannot be made without changing the principle of operation in Jackson. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 4--7. We disagree. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference (i.e. Kleider) may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference (i.e. Jackson); nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to 3 Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). "[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures."). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Jackson teaches: a wireless communication device ([0006] discloses wireless communications devices), comprising: a combiner (Jackson FIG. 1, 16); a plurality of amplifiers that each provide respective output signals that are combined by the combiner into a combined signal; and (Jackson FIG. 1, 12a-12n); a pre- distortion processor ([0005] discloses predistortion as a technique for reducing intermodulation distortion (IMD); where, FIG. 1 discloses a processor 18) configured to provide signal correction for the amplifiers ([0030]-[0031] & FIG. 2, 26 discloses processor 18 controls the error loop 26 to cancel the IMO products i.e. signal correction), the pre-distortion processor receiving feed-forward signal based upon the output signals before the output signals are combined into the combined signal ([0031] discloses an error loop 26 with feed-forward before the signals are combined in the combiner 16). Final Act. 4, 5. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Kleider teaches a feedback loop (365) that couples a power amplifier (362) to a baseband predistortion module (354). Ans. 4 (citing Kleider, i-f 88; Fig 3). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Kleider teaches how a feedback loop couples the power amplifier to the baseband predistortion module and the feedback version of the amplified RF transmit signal waveform is used to a gain and phase adjustment signal such that nonlinearity caused by the power amplifier is 4 Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 equalized. Ans. 10 (citing Kleider, i137). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the feedback as taught by Kleider to modify the system and method of Jackson in order to yield predictable results in order to reduce non-linear distortion prior to transmission. Final Act. 5. Appellants contend that the proposed combination of Jackson and Kleider cannot be made without changing the principle of operation of Jackson. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4--7. Appellants assert that the principle of operation in Jackson is to use the processor 18 for optimizing an error loop 26 of one of the amplifiers 12a-12n only when that particular amplifier is not being used to provide a signal to the combiner 16 (i.e., when that amplifier is disabled). App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that modifying Jackson in a way that would take the output signal of an amplifier 12a-12n before that signal gets combined and provide the pre-combined signal to processor 18 as feedback would change Jackson's principle of operation. Id. We disagree. Jackson describes that, "[t]hose skilled in the art will appreciate that neither the order of disabling the amplifiers nor the number of amplifiers disabled constitutes a departure from the spirit of the present invention." Ans. 8 (citing Jackson, i-f 24). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Jackson describes that while the invention has an error loop 26 that is optimized and that the main amplifier's 20 input signal will be attenuated during this optimization process, this will not affect the splitting, amplification and combining (shown in FIG. 1) of a signal. Id. Therefore, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, Applicants' arguments regarding how Jackson's "principal of operation" is changed is erroneous and 5 Appeal2015-001363 Application 13/101,419 contradicts Jackson. Id. (citing Jackson i124). Moreover, the Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraph 33 of Jackson, relied on by Appellants as disclosing Jackson's "principle of operation," only describes an optimization or training cycle of the error loop and not its normal operational cycle. Ans. 9. The Examiner finds, and we agree: Once this optimization is complete the amplifiers return to normal operation described in Jackson [0032]. In fact, the last sentence of Jackson [0033] discloses after [the] optimization procedure is complete, "Finally, processor 18 actuates switch 32, closing carrier null loop 22, and resets attenuator 28 for little or no attenuation." Thus, the main amplifier 20 is returned to normal operation. Ans. 9 (citing Jackson, i-fi-132, 33). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of cited references teaches or suggests the claimed limitations. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-1 7. DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation