Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

12415676 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/415,676 03/31/2009 Wan Jong Kim 91172-821437 (101400US) 3079
20350 7590 02/08/2017
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAN JONG KIM, KYOUNG JOON CHO, JONG HEON KIM,
and SHAWN PATRICK STAPLETON
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415J6761
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 4—13, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Dali Systems Co. Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415,676
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to wideband communication systems
using multiplexing modulation techniques. More specifically, the present
invention relates to methods for reducing the peak-to-average power ratio
for wideband code division multiple access and orthogonal frequency
division multiplexing signals. Spec. 12.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for reducing peak-to-average power ratio in
wideband communication systems using multiplexing
modulation techniques comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving a baseband input signal, calculating an
amplitude of the baseband input signal by an amplitude
calculator, receiving a clipping threshold value, comparing the
amplitude of the baseband input signal to the clipping threshold
value by a comparator, setting a result equal to a constant by a
multiplexer if the amplitude of the baseband input signal is less
than or equal to the clipping threshold value, quantizing an
inverse of the baseband input signal using a lookup table, and
computing a product of the inverse of the baseband input signal
and the clipping threshold value by a multiplier if the amplitude
of the baseband input signal is greater than the clipping threshold
value and setting the result equal to the product;
(b) subtracting the result of said step (a) from the baseband
input signal;
(c) noise shaping the result of step (b);
(d) scaling the result of the said step (c); and
(e) subtracting from the result of step (d) the delayed
baseband input signal; and
iterating steps (a) to (e) until a clipping level is achieved
that is at least 15% more efficient than a clipping level achieved
by a peaking window clipping technique.
2
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415,676
References and Rejections
1. Claims 1, 4—12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kim, Doherty Feed-Forward Amplifier Performance
Using Novel Crest Factor Reduction Technique, IEEE Microwave and
Wireless Components Letters, Vol. 17, 2007 (“Kim”) and Kim (US
2005/0077960 Al, Apr. 14, 2005) (“Kim ’960”).
2. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Kim ’960, and Braithwaite (US 2005/0190857 Al,
Sept. 1,2005).
ANALYSIS
A. Comparator, Multiplexer, and Multiplier
Claim 1 recites the performance of several calculations, using a
comparator, multiplexer, and multiplier. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x.).
Appellants argue “Kim is completely silent on any use of a comparator, a
multiplexer, or a multiplier, let alone the use of these elements in the manner
recited in independent claim 1.” App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Kim teaches or suggests the limitations of the
claim by disclosing the same block diagram illustrating the same peak
cancellation technique with the same clipper as found in the Appellants’
Specification. Final Act 3^4; Ans. 2—5 (comparing Spec. Fig. 2 with Kim
Fig. 1). The Examiner also finds that the clipper illustrated in Kim performs
the same calculation as the clipper of Appellants’ Specification. Ans. 4.
Thus, the Examiner finds Kim’s clipper teaches or suggests the claimed
3
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415,676
hardware elements (comparator, multiplexer and multiplier) used to perform
such calculation.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and are unpersuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ clipper is used in a Scaled Repeated
Peak Cancellation method as depicted in Figure 2 of Appellants’
Specification. Spec. 120, Fig. 2. The clipper’s function is to calculate an
output as described by an equation in paragraph 23 of Appellants’
Specification. Appellants’ clipper performs this calculation using a
comparator, multiplier, and multiplexer. Spec. Fig. 3C, 129.
As the Examiner notes, Kim also teaches a repeated peak cancellation
method using a clipper. Ans. 2-4; see also Kim Abstract, Fig. 1. Figure 1
of Kim is nearly identical to Figure 2 of Appellants’ Specification,
indicating that Kim’s clipper is used in a manner similar to Appellants’
clipper. Further, Kim’s clipper calculates a clipper output described by an
equation that is identical to the equation calculated by Appellants’ clipper.
Compare Kim equation (1), with Spec. 123. The calculation of the clipper
output represented by equation (1) of Kim (and identically the equation in
paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification) requires a comparison (to
determine whether the input sample is greater than the clipping threshold), a
multiplication (to determine the product of the inverse of the input sample
and the clipping threshold), and selection of whether the output should be a
constant if the input sample is not greater the clipping threshold or whether
the output should be set equal to the multiplication calculation if not. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that this would teach or suggest to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the use of a comparator, multiplier, and multiplexer
to implement the aforementioned calculation, comprising a comparison,
multiplication, and selection, performed by the clipper.
4
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415,676
Moreover, comparators, multiplexers, and multipliers are well known
hardware elements for performing exactly the types of calculations disclosed
in both Kim and Appellants’ invention. We find that the use of such
elements to perform the claimed calculation would have been well within the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Ans. 4—5.
Appellants further argue “Kim is not an enabling prior art reference
because Kim discusses using only mathematical simulations to implement a
proposed algorithm. As a non-enabling reference, Kim cannot be used to
anticipate claim 1.” App. Br. 8. Initially, we note that the rejection at issue
is an obviousness rejection under § 103, not an anticipation rejection under
§102 and that “a non-enabling reference may quality as prior art for the
purpose of determining obviousness under § 103.” Symbol Tech Inc. v.
Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Further, even assuming
that the non-enabling argument applies, Appellants do not present persuasive
evidence that the use of comparators, multipliers, and multiplexers was not
within the knowledge or skill of the ordinary artisan.
B. Quantizing an Inverse of the Baseband Input Signal Using a
Lookup Table
Appellants argue Kim ’960 fails to teach or suggest “quantizing an
inverse of a baseband input signal (x(n)) using a lookup table.” App. Br. 9.
In particular, Appellants argue:
Claim 1 provides 1) quantizing 2) an inverse of the baseband
input signal 3) using a lookup table. In contrast, Kim ’960
discloses, at paragraph [0018], 1) a look-up table 2) composed of
3) signal values that are quantized corresponding to the
amplitude of the absolute value of an input signal. Put another
way, in claim 1, a lookup table is used in quantizing an inverse
of the baseband input signal. In Kim ’960, on the other hand,
quantized values are the contents of the lookup table. Thus while
5
Appeal 2015-008088
Application 12/415,676
Kim ’960 discloses quantized values and a lookup table, Kim
’960 does not combine these elements in the same way as is
provided by claim 1.
Reply Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Kim ’960 teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5. Kim ’960 teaches that an inverse distorted
feedback signal is calculated using a lookup table “composed of signal
values that are quantized corresponding to the amplitude of the absolute
value of an input signal (x(t)).” Kim ’960118. We see no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Kim ’960’s disclosure that an inverse signal can be
calculated (i.e., quantized) using a look-up table teaches or suggests the
claimed “quantizing an inverse of a baseband input signal (x(n)) using a
lookup table.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1. Similarly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 4—13, and 15 for which Appellants have not presented any additional
arguments for patentability. See App. Br. 8—10.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4—13, and 15 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6