Ex Parte LiuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613341848 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 7990.3002.001 2544 EXAMINER LAM, KENNETH T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 13/341,848 12/30/2011 7590 12/22/2016 JOHN QINGCHONG LIU 1333 SANDY RIDGE DRIVE ROCHESTER HILLS, MI 48306 John Qingchong Liu 12/22/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN QINGCHONG LIU Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL L. SILVERMAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4, which constitute all of the claims currently pending in the application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a device and method to generate a signal, transmit the signal, and detect the signal in communication systems. See Spec. 12. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A receiver (18) for receiving a received signal (r(t)), said receiver (18) comprising: an input port (51) for receiving the received signal (r(t)), said input port (51) defining first (53) and second (55) branches extending out therefrom allowing the received signal (r(t)) to be transmitted along both of said first (53) and second (55) branches; an in-phase mixer (54) electrically connected to said first branch (53); a quadrature mixer (60) electrically connected to said second branch (55); a local oscillator (52) electrically connected to said in- phase (54) and said quadrature (60) mixers, said local oscillator (52) creating an in-phase wave signal and a quadrature wave phase signal, said in-phase mixer (54) mixing the received signal (r(t)) with the in-phase wave signal to create an in-phase received signal, said quadrature mixer (60) mixing the communications signal with the quadrature wave signal to create a quadrature received signal; a signal detector operatively connected to said in-phase mixer (54) and said quadrature mixer (60) to receive and correlate the in-phase received signal and the quadrature received signal, said signal detector producing a parameter estimation output and a signal output indicating detection of the received signal (r(t)); a parameter estimator (67) electrically connected to said signal detector (66) and operatively connected to said in-phase mixer (54) and said quadrature mixer (60) for estimating parameters of the received signal (r(t)), wherein said parameter estimator (67) includes a timing estimator (70) in electrical 2 Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 communication with said signal detector (66) to detect a timing offset of the received signal (r(t)) by locating a peak in the received signal and performing an interpolation and timing offset estimate using a peak value of the peak, a value right before the peak and a value right after the peak; and a demodulator operatively connected to said in-phase mixer (54), said quadrature mixer (60), said signal detector (66) and said parameter estimator (67) to demodulate the received signal (r(t)) for its designated use. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Zhu (US 2004/0005022 Al; Jan. 8, 2004), Kleider (US 2011/0074506 Al; Mar. 31, 2011), and Fite (US 2007/0177699 Al; Aug. 2,2007). ISSUE Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhu, Kleider, and Fite teaches or suggests a timing estimator to detect a timing offset (“timing offset” limitation) and a demodulator operatively connected to said in-phase mixer (54), said quadrature mixer (60), said signal detector (66) and said parameter estimator (67) (“demodulator” limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant contends the combination of references does not disclose the “timing offset” and “demodulator” limitations recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 5—8, 11—12. In particular, Appellant argues the “offset 3 Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 estimation” described in paragraph 112 of Zhu only refers to frequency, not to symbol timing. App. Br. 5. Appellant asserts Zhu’s symbol timing is completely different than the claimed “timing offset” because in the claimed invention, the ADC timing offset is much less than T (the original data symbol time). App. Br. 6. Appellant further argues the demodulator is Zhu is only connected to the output of the equalizer 46 and is not connected to mixers, a signal detector, nor a parameter estimator. App. Br. 6. Appellant asserts that Kleider and Fite do not overcome the shortcomings of Zhu. App. Br. 7—8, 11—12. Additionally, Appellant argues the combination of references is improper because: (i) the Kleider reference teaches away from the combination with the Zhu reference (App. Br. 8—9); the spread spectrum system disclosed by Fite cannot be combined with a non-spread spectrum system (App. Br. 10—11); and (iii) the Examiner fails to suggest why the combination would be made by one skill in the art (App. Br. 12). We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds Zhu teaches a timing estimator (processor 1) that performs a number of synchronization functions, including detecting a timing offset. Ans. 3 (citing Zhu 75, 89—101). The Examiner further finds Zhu teaches auto-correlation of a sequence of received samples with calculation of delay time (timing offset) = DT and integration duration of Tw=WT, where D indicates the size, in samples of a first buffer and W indicates the size, in samples of a second buffer used in processing the received samples. See Ans. 3 (citing Zhu 1102). Thus, the Examiner concludes that Zhu teaches or suggests the “timing offset” limitation. Ans. 3. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of error because they do not address the Examiner’s specific findings, and, in particular, do not explain 4 Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 why the delay time described by Zhu does not teach or suggest the claimed timing offset. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 3, 5) that the claims do not limit the “timing offset” to be much less than the original data symbol time as argued by Appellant. With regard to the “demodulator” limitation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Zhu teaches or suggests this limitation. Ans. 5—6; Final Act. 5—6. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Zhu teaches a demodulator 47 operatively connected to in-phase mixer 17, quadrature mixer 19, and synchronization function 1 (mapped to the claimed signal detector and parameter estimator). See Zhu, Fig. 4, || 74—75, 83. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of error because claim 1 merely recites the demodulator is “operatively connected” to the components, not a direct connection, as implicitly argued by Appellant. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the combination is improper. The relevant inquiry in an obviousness analysis is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner did not provide a reason why the combination would be made, the Examiner finds all three references are in the field of wireless communication directed to a receiver structure for digital signal processing and correction, and that the reason to combine the references is “to improve the system implementation efficiency” (Zhu and Kleider) and “to improve the accuracy of the time and frequency offset estimates” (Zhu and Fite). Ans. 14—15. Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s stated 5 Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 reasons for the combination. In the absence of persuasive argument or evidence, we determine the Examiner’s articulated reasoning is a sufficient rationale to support the combination. Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments do not establish the Kleider reference teaches away from combination with Zhu. To teach away, a reference must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner relies on Kleider to support the finding that it is well known in the art to utilize separate components for performing individual functions (i.e., the signal detector and parameter estimator taught by Zhu can be separate components). See Ans. 10—11. Appellant has not provided sufficient argument or evidence to show that Zhu criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages separating its synchronization function into separate signal detector and parameter estimator components. Appellant’s assertions also do not convince us the references cannot be combined. To justify combining references, it is not necessary that one device can be physically inserted into the other device or whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of a primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner does not propose to bodily incorporate the references, but rather relies on Kleider to teach separate components can be used to perform individual functions and relies on Fite to disclose the claimed interpolation. See Ans. 10-13. As discussed previously, the Examiner provides sufficient reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references. Appellant’s attorney arguments are insufficient to establish the proposed combination would not be possible or that one skilled 6 Appeal 2015-005609 Application 13/341,848 in the art would not have combined the references. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney argument is not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness). For the foregoing reasons, Appellant fails to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 and 4, which are not argued separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation