Ex Parte Mertens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

12033700 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/033,700 02/19/2008
48154 7590
SLATER MATSIL, LLP
17950 PRESTON ROAD
SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252
05/17/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Koen Mertens
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
INF 2007 P 53017 US 6773
EXAMINER
HUGHES, EBONI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
docketing@slatermatsil.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KOEN MERTENS and THOMAS POETSCHER
Appeal2014-007087
Application 12/033,700
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Infineon Technologies
AG. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007087
Application 12/033,700
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for a burst mode
amplifier. Spec. i-f 1.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
1. A system for amplifying a burst mode RF signal, the
system comprising:
a first amplifier, the first amplifier configured to amplify
the burst mode RF signal provided at an input of the first
amplifier;
a second amplifier having an input coupled to the output
of the first amplifier; and
a switchable impedance element coupled to the output of
the first amplifier and to an input of the second amplifier,
wherein the switchable impedance element is configured to
comprise a first impedance when the burst mode RF signal is
active and to comprise a second impedance when the burst mode
RF signal is inactive.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 7, 14--16, 18, 19, 21-23, and25-28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang (US 7,177,370 B2,
Feb. 13, 2007), Javor (US 6,952,144 B2, Oct. 4, 2005), and Steel (US
6,658,265 Bl, Dec. 2, 2003).
2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Blin (US 2008/0261544 Al, Oct.
23, 2008).
3. Claims 3, 8, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Itkin (US 2008/0180168 Al, July
31, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-007087
Application 12/033,700
4. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Rasmussen (US 2008/0001660
Al, Jan. 3, 2008).
5. Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Staszewski (US 2009/0096525
Al, Apr. 16, 2009).
6. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Grondahl (US 5,936,464, Aug.
10, 1999).
7. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Dent (US 6,961,368 B2, Nov. 1,
2005).
8. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Pengelly (US 2006/0214732 Al,
Sept. 28, 2006).
9. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhang, Javor, Steel, and Dow (US 2007/0188224 Al,
Aug. 16, 2007).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies upon Javor as teaching or suggesting a
switchable impedance element "wherein the switchable impedance element
is configured to comprise a first impedance when the burst mode RF signal
is active and to comprise a second impedance when the burst mode RF
signal is inactive," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Javor 2:5-21);
see also Ans. 4 (citing Javor 2:5-21 and 59---64). In particular, the Examiner
3
Appeal2014-007087
Application 12/033,700
finds Javor discloses a variable impedance matching circuit whose
impedance may be altered to match the output impedance of power amplifier
110. Final Act. 3 (citing Javor 2:5-21). The Examiner further finds Javor
teaches that a power control signal may be used to vary the output power of
power amplifier 110 and, thus, "may alter the output power to be active or
inactive (i.e. zero power) and may alter the impedance of variable
impedance matching circuit." Ans. 4 (citing Javor 2:59---64).
Appellants argue "none of the cited references teaches or suggests a
switchable impedance element that has an impedance value that is based on
whether a burst mode RF signal is active or inactive." App. Br. 7.
Appellants further argue that Javor is "silent on the state of the impedance
elements when the power amplifier is inactive." Id. Responding to the
Examiner's Answer, Appellants argue Javor "does not disclose that power
control signal is based on a burst mode signal and does not address the issue
of 'zero power' or inactive state as alleged by the Examiner." Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we agree
that Javor does not disclose that the power control signal is based on a burst
mode RF signal. Figure 1 of Javor shows that the power control signal is
distinct from the RF signal. See also Javor 1 :58---63). Because claim 1
requires the impedance of the switchable impedance element to be based on
whether the burst mode RF signal is active or inactive, the Examiner's
findings regarding Javor's power control signal do not address the
limitations of the claim.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
4
Appeal2014-007087
Application 12/033,700
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 22 and dependent claims
2-13, 15-21, and 23-28.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
5