Ex Parte Muhammad

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10832531 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KHURRAM MUHAMMAD
____________

Appeal 2010-010336
Application 10/832,5311
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a
programmable loop filter for use with a sigma delta analog-to-digital
converter. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated.
Appeal 2010-010336
Application 10/832,531

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 20, 2010) and the Answer (mailed
Mar. 23, 2010). We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention is directed to a programmable loop filter, a
method of programming the same and a sigma delta analog-to-digital
converter (ADC) incorporating the programmable loop filter or the method.
(Abstract).
Claims 1-34 are on appeal. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 are independent.
(App. Br., Claims App. 1-6). An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A programmable loop filter for use with a sigma delta
analog-to-digital converter (ADC), comprising:
a configurable passive filter structure containing
selectably interconnectable alternative filter elements; and
a configuration controller coupled to said configurable
passive filter structure and operable to interconnect at least a
selected one of said filter elements to determine a transfer
characteristic of said configurable passive filter structure and
set an operating condition of said sigma delta ADC.

The claims are rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 8, 22-30, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Robinson (US 6,894,632 B1, filed Jan. 14, 2004) and
Utsunomiya (US 7,327,406 B2, filed Oct. 16, 2002). (Ans. 3-6).
Appeal 2010-010336
Application 10/832,531

3
2. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 20, 31, and 32 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson, Utsunomiya, and
Swanson (US 5,068,660, Nov. 26, 1991). (Ans. 6-9).
3. Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Robinson, Utsunomiya, Swanson, and Knudsen (US 6,583,741
B1, filed Nov. 8, 2000). (Ans. 9-12).
4. Claims 4, 7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Robinson, Utsunomiya, and Knudsen. (Ans. 10-11).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CLAIMS 1, 8, 22-30, 33, AND 34
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 8, 22-30, 33, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson and Utsunomiya. (Ans. 3-6).
Appellant contends that Robinson fails to teach or suggest “selectably
interconnectable alternative filter elements,” as required by claims 1 and 8,
or “selectably interconnectable filter elements,” as required by claim 22. The
Examiner answers that Robinson clearly teaches that filter (164) is selectable
from among a plurality of possible filters. (Ans. 13).
Appellant contends that Robinson teaches filter (164) is selectable
from a variety of types of filters, but whichever filter (164) is actually
chosen, it must precede filter (166). Therefore, Robinson fails to teach that
filters (164) and (166) are alternative filter elements. (App. Br. 11-12).
Appeal 2010-010336
Application 10/832,531

4
The issue is whether the prior art discloses “selectably
interconnectable alternative filter elements.”
ANALYSIS
Appellant claims “selectably interconnectable alternative filter
elements” (claims 1 and 8) and “selectably interconnectable filter elements”
(claim 22). Appellant is persuasive that Robinson discloses that filter (164)
may be selected from a plurality of different types of filter, but Robinson
does not disclose a topology whereby filters (164 and 166, or any other
filters) are “selectively interconnectable.”
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims
1, 8, 22-30, 33, and 34.

THE REMAINING CLAIMS
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19,
20, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson,
Utsunomiya, and Swanson. (Ans. 6-9). The Examiner has rejected claims 18
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson, Utsunomiya,
Swanson, and Knudsen. (Ans. 9-12). The Examiner has rejected claims 4, 7,
11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Robinson, Utsunomiya,
and Knudsen. (Ans. 10-11).
Each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 recites “selectably
interconnectable . . . filter elements” which, as discussed above, is not
disclosed in the cited art. In view thereof, we decline to sustain the rejections
of claims 2-7, 9-21, 31, and 32.

Appeal 2010-010336
Application 10/832,531

5
SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-34.

REVERSED

babc