Ex Parte Mujica et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

14156238 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
14/156,238 01/15/2014 Fernando A. Mujica TI-68548.1 8046
23494 7590 02/27/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
MCKIE, GINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED1
Appeal 2016-007528
Application 14/156,238
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 23^42. App. Br. 9.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Fernando A. Mujica and Lei Ding are named as inventors.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed July 16, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed December 9, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
June 16, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed July 29, 2016 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2016-007528
Application 14/156,238
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Embodiments of the invention provide a [Digital Pre-
Distortion (DPD)] system where the transmit reference signal is
transformed, including sub-sampling, frequency translation, and
the like, to match the feedback signal, which goes thru a similar
transformation process, to obtain an error signal. The same
transformation is applied to a system model, which may be
Jacobian, Hessian, Gradient, or the like, in an adaptation
algorithm to minimize error.
Abstract.
Independent claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
appealed claims:
23. A system, comprising:
a digital pre-distortion circuit in a transmission path
between a system input and a transmission circuit;
a feedback circuit coupled between the output of the
transmission circuit and a training module, the feedback circuit
providing feedback signal samples from the output of the
transmission circuit at a feedback sampling rate that is lower than
an input sampling rate used for system input signals and
containing both the output of the transmission circuit and a
plurality of aliases of the output of the transmission circuit; and
a training circuit coupled to the system input and coupled
to an output of the feedback circuit, the training circuit
comprising a feedback-model circuit operating to modify the
system input signals to match characteristics of the feedback
signal samples, the training circuit providing operating
parameters to the digital pre-distortion circuit.
Claims 23^42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sarca (US 2005/0123066 Al; published June 9, 2005) in view of Windisch
(US 2006/0067425 Al; published Mar. 30, 2006).
2
Appeal 2016-007528
Application 14/156,238
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Sarca discloses every limitation of
independent claim 23 except that “Sarca does not specifically disclose the
training circuit providing operating parameters to the digital pre-distortion
circuit.” Final Act. 7—8.3 The Examiner finds that Windisch teaches a
training circuit providing operating parameters to a digital pre-distortion
circuit. Id. at 8—9 (citing Windisch 128; id. FIG. 1). The Examiner further
finds that it would have been obvious “to have [Sarca’s] training circuit
provide operating parameters to the digital pre-distortion circuit.” Id. at 9.
More particularly in relation to these noted findings, the Examiner
relies on Sarca’s discussion of the FIG. 3 embodiment for the teaching of
“a feedback sampling rate that is lower than an input sampling rate used for
system input signals,” as recited in independent claim 23. Final Act. 7—8
(citing Sarca 1 54 (“the second mixer 62 is used to down convert the
3 We question whether Sarca, in fact, teaches a coupling between the
training circuit and the system input, as recited in the last limitation of
independent claim 23. The Examiner does not cite to a specific element or
any support for this particular claimed coupling. And Sarca’s Figure 3, upon
which the Examiner relies, does not appear to depict a coupling between the
system input, upstream of Sarca’s non-linear pre-distortion block 52, and
any portion of the adaption algorithm block 54. However, we do not reach
any conclusions regarding this matter. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307,
1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to
make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
3
Appeal 2016-007528
Application 14/156,238
feedback signal from RF back to baseband”)); see also Ans. 3 (restating this
finding).
Appellant asserts, among other arguments, that
[i]n Claim 23, the feedback signal ... is sampled at a lower
sampling rate and contains both the output of the transmission
circuit and a plurality of aliases of the output of the transmission
circuit. Applicants use a lower sampling rate than the Nyquist
rate required for sampling the transmit signal. Applicants’
feedback signal is fundamentally different from those used in
Sarca and Windisch.
App. Br. 13.
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Sarca indicates that the
frequency of the input signals to the non-linear pre-distortion block 52 is the
same as the frequency of the feedback signal output from second mixer 62.
Cf., e.g., Sarca 118 (indicating that the pre-distortion of block 52 is applied
to a digital baseband signal), with Sarca 1 54 (indicating that the second
mixer 62 down converts the previously up converted baseband signal back
down to this baseband). That is, Sarca’s feedback circuit appears to provide
feedback signal samples from the output of the transmission circuit at a
feedback sampling rate this is the same as an input sampling rate used for
system input signals—not at a lower rate, as required by Appellant’s claims.
For these reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 23, 31, and 36, each
of which requires that the feedback sampling rate be lower than, or at a
different rate than, the input sampling rate. Accordingly, we do not sustain
4
Appeal 2016-007528
Application 14/156,238
the Examiner’s rejection of these independent claims or of claims 24—30,
32—35, and 37-42, which depend from these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23—42 is reversed.
REVERSED
5