Ex Parte Kitagawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

11036461 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte TSUYOSHI KITAGAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-008883
Application 11/036,461
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3, 4 and 6. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 5 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2010-008883
Application 11/036,461
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to generating a delayed analog signal
corresponding to processed digital data that has a desired delay relative to an
analog signal. (Spec. 1, ll. 5-8, Abstract).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 4 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A method for generating a delayed analog signal
corresponding to processed digital data that has a desired delay
relative to an analog signal corresponding to a source digital
data comprising the steps of:
digitally calculating the processed digital data from the source
digital data in response to a delay control signal corresponding
to the desired delay; and
converting the processed digital data into the delayed analog
signal using a modified clock having a frequency that is k-times
that of a reference clock for the source digital data.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marchetto et al. (U.S. 5,473,638, Dec. 5, 1995;
“Marchetto”) in view of Hase et al. (U.S. 5,878,097, Mar. 2, 1999; “Hase”).
(Answer 3-5).1
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marchetto in view of Hase and Anderson et al. (U.S.
6,005,983, Dec. 21, 1999; “Anderson”). (Answer 5-6).

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on Feb.
19, 2010.
Appeal 2010-008883
Application 11/036,461
3

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 10 through 12 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in
error.2 These arguments present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hase teaches a “modified
clock having a frequency that is k-times that of a reference clock
for the source digital data” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree
with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. However we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.

The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hase teaches a “modified
clock having a frequency that is k-times that of a reference clock
for the source digital data” as recited in claim 1?
The Examiner correctly pointed to excerpts of Hase showing that
Hase teaches the “modified clock having a frequency that is k-times that of a
reference clock for the source digital data” as recited in claim 1. (Answer 4,

2 Throughout this opinion were refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Dec.
7, 2009.
Appeal 2010-008883
Application 11/036,461
4
6-7). Appellant contends that “Hase’s ‘error signal’ does not have a
‘frequency’ at all….” (Appeal Br. 12). However, Appellant did not provide
sufficient explanation or analysis in the Appeal Brief to persuade us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
For example, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding
that Hase teaches this limitation because the control signal 12 referred to by
the Examiner “is not phase-locked and harmonically related to reference
signal 7.” (Appeal Br. 11). As support, Appellant refers to one excerpt of
Hase relating to Figure 7, but Appellant does not address the following later
excerpt regarding this same embodiment. (Appeal Br. 10-11).
The constituent components collectively form a phase-locked
loop for producing a control signal 12 to generate an amount of
delay independent of variation in quality of the circuit chip,
change in power, and deviation in temperature.
(Hase col. 7, ll. 2-5).
Additionally, the Examiner stated:
[T]he secondary reference by Hase et al. clearly disclose[s] the
limitations of “converting the processed digital data into the
delayed analog signal using a modified clock having a
frequency that is k-times that of a reference clock for the source
digital data” wherein the modified clock signal is the signal of
the PLLs 3-4 in Figures 2-3, particularly the output clock signal
of the PLL 4 in Figures 3-4.
(Answer 7). Appellant did not provide sufficient explanation or analysis to
persuade us that the Examiner failed to show that PLL 4 in Figures 3-4
meets this limitation. Accordingly, because we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we sustain the
rejection.

Appeal 2010-008883
Application 11/036,461
5
The rejection of claims 3, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
Appellant did not provide sufficient explanation or analysis in the
Appeal Brief regarding the additional arguments relating to claim 3 to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. (Appeal Br. 12).
With respect to the rejection of claims 4 and 6, Appellant allows those
claims to fall with claim 1 by relying on the same reasons presented for the
patentability of claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10-12). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
Based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hase and Marchetto. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1 and of claims 3, 4 and 6 falling therewith.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6.
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj