Ex Parte Lobo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2014

11839771 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NATIVIDADEL LOBO

____________
Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 34, 36-39, and 42-51. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to defining a pulse function
shape for acting on a data stream 201 for transmission in a
telecommunication system (Fig. 2), which compensates for distortion caused
by a component of the transmitter. A look up table 206 defines the pulse
function over a range of frequencies to compensate for component
distortion. The function provides optimum distortion over a range of
tolerance values to enable a single look up table to be used for a variation of
components. See Spec. ¶¶ [0085]-[0087] and Fig. 2.

Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
shaping a pulse function independently of a feedback based on data
obtained from a look-up table, the look-up table defining the
amplitude of a pulse function over a range of frequencies; and

shaping a data stream for transmission in a telecommunications
system in accordance with the pulse function to compensate for
distortion by a component of a transmitter,

wherein the look-up table is selected to be usable for a range of
tolerance values of the component.

Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

3
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 34, 36-39, 42, 43 and 45-
51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graziani (US
4,409,594 A, Oct. 11, 1983) in view of Salinger (US 6,252,912 B1,
Jun. 26, 2001).

2. The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Graziani and Salinger, and further in view of
Lilly (US 6,128,589, Oct. 3, 2000).
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Graziani and Salinger teaches:
1. a “look-up table selected to be usable for a range of tolerance
values of a component of a transmitter,” as recited in claims 1, 34, and
45; and
2. “the data obtained from the look-up table is associated with a cost
function according to the range of tolerance values” of a component
of a transmitter, as recited in claims 48 and 51.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 34, 36-39, 42-47, 49, and 50
Appellant argues the combination of Graziani and Salinger does not
teach a look-up table selected to be usable for a range of tolerance values of
a component of a transmitter (App. Br. 5). Appellant argues Salinger
describes multiple distortion values stored in memory, which does not
Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

4
constitute a range of component tolerance values as recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 5-6).
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
range of predistortion values stored in memory is a range of tolerance values
for an amplifier (Ans. 9). Salinger (col. 4, ll. 10-18) teaches the memory
stores MK-1 predistortion values to compensate for non-linear distortion.
The Specification and claims are not limited to a particular type of tolerance
value, such as for the input, output, amplifier gain, distortion, etc.1
Therefore, the predistortion for each of the MK-1 input values to the
amplifier can be a range of tolerance values stored in memory. We do not
find persuasive the Appellant’s argument that the amplifier tolerance at the
input has no bearing on the component tolerance (Reply Br. 4). We agree
with the Examiner’s reasoning that from the lowest predistortion value to the
highest predistortion value, a range of values within the tolerance range of
the amplifier will be selected and stored in memory (Ans. 9). These values
are selected because they will accurately predistort the signal to compensate
for errors caused by, among other factors, components of the transmitter
(Ans. 9).
Appellant argues that a range of distortion values applies to a single
component, and does not allow for a different component with a different
tolerance (App. Br. 7). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is
not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claims do not
require the range of tolerance to be applied to different components with

1 Tolerance: a permissible deviation from a specified value. Radio Shack,
Dict. of Electronics (1974-1975).
Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

5
different tolerance values, they merely require a range of tolerance for “a
component of a transmitter.”
Appellant further argues that claim 1 is not obvious over Salinger
because it requires measuring individual devices during manufacture, which
can be avoided by the claimed invention. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate with the claimed method of
shaping the data stream (claim 1) or the apparatus (claims 34 and 45).
Appellant further argues that individual measurements are not needed
because Appellant’s invention uses measured scaling coefficients specific to
the device (Reply Br. 4). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because
scaling coefficients are not recited in the claims.
Appellant further argues that the combination of Graziani and
Salinger does not teach a “look up table defining the amplitude of a pulse
function over a range of frequencies” (App. Br. 6).
We do not agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Salinger teaches the look up table defining the amplitude of the distortion
pulse (Ans. 11). Salinger teaches that the amplitude of the pulse is being
altered to compensate for nonlinearity in the amplifier (col. 4, ll. 9-10). The
Examiner relies on Griziani for teaching a range of frequencies (id. at 5).
The combined teachings suggest a lookup table defining the amplitude of a
pulse function over a range of frequencies used to compensate for distortion.
Furthermore, Appellant merely alleges that the cited prior art does not
disclose the “look up table defining amplitude of a pulse function over a
range of frequencies.” Appellant has not pointed out why the combination
of Graziani and Salinger fails to teach the claimed limitation, as set forth by
the Examiner (id. at 5-6).
Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

6
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and also
for the similar reasons, the rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 34, 36-39, 42-
47, 49, and 50.
Claims 48 and 51
Appellant argues that the combination of Graziani and Salinger does
not teach “the data obtained from the look-up table is associated with a cost
function according to the range of tolerance values” of a component of the
transmitter, as recited in claims 48 and 51.
We do not agree. We interpret the cost function consistent with
Appellant’s Specification ¶ [0089], where the distortion (cost) function
compensates for errors in the filter and power amplifier. The Examiner finds
Salinger provides the same purpose of reducing errors by a predistortion
stored in memory 14 (Ans. 13). Salinger teaches the predistortion of a signal
to eliminate message errors by compensating distortion (col. 3, ll. 34-40).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner Salinger’s predistortion values are
“associated” with a cost function to the extent they reduce transmission
errors over a range of tolerance values.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48 and 51.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Graziani and
Salinger teaches:
Appeal 2011-011822
Application 11/839,771

7
1. a “look-up table selected to be usable for a range of tolerance
values of a component of a transmitter,” as recited in claims 1, 34, and
45; and
2. “the data obtained from the look-up table is associated with a cost
function according to the range of tolerance values” of a component
of a transmitter, as recited in claims 48 and 51.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 34, 36-39,
and 42-51 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lp