Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2013

11810371 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHAEKWAN LEE, PETER A. THOMPSON, BILL XENAKIS,
and KYUNG SUP HAN
____________

Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15-27, 29-
32, 35, and 36. Claims 7, 14, 28, and 34 have been withdrawn. (App.
Br. 5). Claim 12 is objected to. (Id.). Claim 33 is not rejected and is not
before us. (See Final Rej. 2).1 Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
This invention relates to in-phase and quadrature imbalance
calibration. (Spec. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
storing N digitized samples I(n) and Q(n) representing in-
phase and quadrature (I-Q) components, respectively, of a
down-converted signal from a receiver, the I-Q components
being generated from a quadrature demodulator or modulator
having I-Q imbalance; and
computing phase and gain adjustment constants from the
N digitized samples to compensate for the I-Q imbalance using
a closed form solution.

1 The Examiner withdrew the previous rejection of claims 22-27 and 29-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Final Rej. 2). Thus, claim 33 is not rejected and is
not before us on appeal. (Id.).
Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
3
REJECTIONS2
R1. Claims 1, 8-11, 13, 15-22, 29-32, 35, and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saed (U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2005/0018787, January 27, 2005).
R2. Claims 2-6 and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Saed in view of Nguyen (US Patent 6,680,648 B2,
January 20, 2004).

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1 AND 22
Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Saed discloses
"computing phase and gain adjustment constants from the N digitized
samples to compensate for the I-Q imbalance using a closed form solution,"
within the meaning of claim 1, and the commensurate language of claim 22?

The Examiner finds Saed’s paragraphs [0064]-[0114] disclose the
limitation at issue. (Ans. 13).
Appellants contend:
[T]here is certainly no teaching of "computing phase and gain
adjustment constants from the N digitized samples to
compensate for the I-Q imbalance using a closed form
solution." In fact, the Examiner fails to point to any computed
value or parameter of Saed that might correspond to the recited
phase and gain adjustment constants.
(Reply Br. 2-3).

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 13 and 15-21 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
4
In reviewing the record, we find the Examiner paints with a broad
brush in relying on fifty paragraphs [0064]-[0114] in Saed to support the
anticipation rejection, which requires a clear mapping of each disputed
limitation to the corresponding limitation in the reference. (Ans. 13).
We note that in an ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of
review—we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte
Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). "The review authorized by
35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s]
the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first
instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999).
Because the Board is basically a board of review, and not a place of
initial examination, we will not engage in the de novo examination required
to precisely map the limitation at issue to fifty paragraphs of the
reference. (Ans. 13). To affirm the Examiner on this record would require
speculation on our part. We decline to engage in speculation.
For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 22.
CLAIMS 9 & 30
Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Saed discloses
"injecting a first signal at a first frequency . . . ; detecting the transmitter
signal to generate a composite signal having the first signal and a second
signal at a second frequency twice the first frequency," (emphasis added)
within the meaning of claim 9, and the commensurate language of claim 30?

Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
5
Appellants contend:
The Examiner confusingly refers to the "demod" block
126 of Saed and, despite any description of any type of
frequency of a signal generated by the block 126, concludes this
block will generate a composite signal, as recited in the claims.
In attempting this argument, the Examiner states that "the
second signal will be sampled in the ADC at twice the
maximum component frequency of the signal." Applicants
respectfully submit, however, that the Examiner has confused a
sampling frequency with the frequency of the signal.
(Reply Br. 3).
Appellants' contentions are persuasive. The Examiner erred in finding
that the disputed limitation of "a second signal at a second frequency twice
the first frequency [of the first signal]" (claim 9) was disclosed by Saed's
sampling of a second signal "at twice the maximum component frequency of
the [first] signal." (Ans. 14). We note that sampling a second signal at any
particular rate does not change the frequency of the sampled second signal.
(See Reply Br. 3). Therefore, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 9 and 30.

CLAIMS 13 & 35
Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Saed discloses
"first and second multipliers coupled to the first adder to multiply second I
and Q components in the communication path with first and second
adjustment constants, respectively, to produce the first and second products,
respectively," within the meaning of claim 13, and the commensurate
language of claim 35?

Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
6
The Examiner finds:
In figure 7, Saed discloses first and second multipliers (a0 and
a1) coupled to the first adder (adder receiving signals from a0
and a1) to produce a first I components. Saed discloses third
and fourth multipliers (a4 and a5) coupled to a second adder
(adder receiving the signals from a4 and a5) to produce a first Q
components.
(Ans. 14).
Appellants contend:
As only one example to illustrate the differences between
the claimed arrangement and the circuit of Figure 7, the claimed
first and third multipliers both multiply a "second I component"
signals to produce "first and third" products, respectively. In
Figure 7 of Saed, only the a0 and a1 multipliers operate on an I
component signal, so these are the only multipliers that may be
considered as analogous to the first and third multipliers.
However, the products of the a0 and a1 multipliers are
subsequently added together. In contrast, the claims recite that
the first product (produced by the first multiplier) is added to a
second product (by a first adder) and that the third product is
added to a fourth product (by a second adder). As the products
of the a0 and a1 are added together, in Saed, there are no
analogous adders to the first and second adders recited in the
claims.
(Reply Br. 4).

We agree with Appellants and find the Examiner's mapping to be
unclear with respect to the disputed limitations. In particular, we agree with
Appellants that Saed Figure 7 does not teach the limitation at issue because
Saed's first multiple (a0) and second multiple (a1) multiply only the I
component (Fig. 7; Iα(k)) and do not multiply the claimed "second I and Q
components." (Saed Fig. 7; Iα(k) and Qα(k)). For these reasons, on this
Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
7
record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 13 and 35.

CLAIM 16
Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Saed discloses
"a pre-compensation circuit coupled to modulator in-phase and quadrature
(I-Q) components of a modulator of the transmitter to generate pre-
compensated I-Q components to the I-Q DACs, respectively, using
compensation constants to compensate for the I-Q imbalance, the
compensation constants being computed using a closed-form solution in
calibration procedure," within the meaning of claim 16?

The Examiner finds:
Figure 1 discloses the transmitter comprises a modulator for
modulating the complex signal for transmission (MOD figure
1). The modulator is a quadrature modulated circuit. A
feedback signal is predistorted by an adaptive predistorter 70
and branch calculator 80 to compensate for imbalances
affecting the transmit signal by modifying the gain and phase of
the complex time domain phasor (paragraph 0300). The
predistortor and branch calculator are the error circuit and
precompensation circuit since these circuits will determine an
IQ imbalance (or the error between the received signal and a
signal free of IQ imbalance) and will compensate for the
imbalance (precompensate since the compensation will take
place prior to the signal being transmitted).
(Ans. 15).
Appellants contend:
While the Examiner again refers to "an adaptive predistorter
70" and ["]branch calculator 80", the Examiner fails to actually
point out how any of these elements (even if combined[)]
Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
8
correspond to the recited "a pre-compensation circuit coupled to
modulator in-phase and quadrature (I-Q) components of a
modulator of the transmitter to generate pre-compensated I-Q
components to the I-Q DACs, respectively, using compensation
constants to compensate for the I-Q imbalance, the
compensation constants being computed using a closed-form
solution in calibration procedure."
(Reply Br. 4).
We agree with Appellants and find the Examiner's mapping to be
unclear with respect to the disputed limitations. Consistent with our
discussion above, we will not engage in the de novo examination required to
precisely map the limitation at issue to the Saed reference. (Ans. 6; 14-15).
To affirm the Examiner on this record would require speculation on our part.
We decline to engage in speculation. For these reasons, on this record, we
are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 16.

DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Because we have reversed the anticipation rejection R1 for each
independent claim before us on appeal, we also reverse the Examiner's
rejection R1 of each associated dependent claim.
Regarding the Examiner's §103 rejection R2 of dependent claims 2-6
and 23-27, the Examiner did not allege that the additionally cited Nguyen
reference cured the defects noted above with respect to the anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 over Saed. Therefore, we reverse
the Examiner's rejection R2 of these claims.

Appeal 2010-010790
Application 11/810,371
9
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 1, 8-11, 13, 15-22,
29-32, 35, and 36 under § 102.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 2-6 and 23-27 under
§ 103.
REVERSED

peb