Ex Parte Pullela et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2016

13933865 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016)

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.
13/933,865 07/02/2013 Raja Pullela 25605US02 8192
23446 7590 12/21/2016
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2016 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):
mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJA PULLELA, GLENN CHANG,
and TIMOTHY GALLAGHER1
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, SHARON FENICK, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20, which constitute all of the claims under
consideration in this appeal. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Maxlinear, Inc. See
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed
July 2, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Jan,
26, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed June 22, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Sept. 10, 2015; and the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.”) filed Nov. 9, 2015.
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ application relates to canceling crosstalk between satellite
signals received on a chip. Spec. 112. Claims 1,11, and 20 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below with
disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A method for wireless communication, the method
comprising:
receiving radio frequency (RF) signals on a chip, said RF signals
comprising a desired signal and at least one crosstalk signal;
down-converting the received RF signals to baseband
frequencies;
converting the down-converted signals to digital signals;
determining crosstalk between channels in the received RF
signals by calculating complex coupling coefficients between the
received RF signals utilizing a de-correlation algorithm across a
frequency bandwidth comprising said desired and crosstalk signals',
and
extracting data communicated by said desired signal by utilizing
said complex coupling coefficients to cancel the crosstalk between said
channels in the received RF signals.
App. Br. 27 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Sendyk et al. (“Sendyk”) US 2004/0132414 A1 July 8, 2004
Milotta et al. (“Milotta”) US 8,615,055 B2 Dec. 24, 2013
2
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
REJECTION
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Milotta and Sendyk. Final Act. 3—15.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Milotta and
Sendyk teaches or suggests “determining crosstalk between channels in the
received RF signals by calculating complex coupling coefficients between
the received RF signals utilizing a de-correlation algorithm across a
frequency bandwidth comprising said desired and crosstalk signals,” as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Milotta and
Sendyk teaches or suggests “wherein the de-correlation algorithm comprises
a blind source separation algorithm,” as recited in claim 2?
3. Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Milotta and
Sendyk teaches or suggests “approximating said crosstalk as linear within
said frequency bandwidth,” as recited in claim 3?
3
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in light of the
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 4—15) and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. Ans. 17—25. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis and completeness.
The Examiner relies on Sendyk to teach or suggest “determining
crosstalk between channels,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4—5.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Sendyk’s discussion of cancelling
interference between superimposed signals received by antennas 104a and
104b. Final Act. 4—5.
Appellants argue Sendyk doesn’t teach determining crosstalk between
channels. Appeal Br. 15. We disagree. Sendyk discusses detecting and
cancelling interference between signals. Sendyk 170. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Sendyk’s detecting of interference between signals
teaches or suggests determining crosstalk. Ans. 18.
Appellants further argue Sendyk doesn’t teach determining crosstalk
between channels in the received RF signals by calculating complex
coupling coefficients between the received RF signals “because Sendyk
teaches the individual control of each of the transmitted signals to configure
FIR filters, and no crosstalk needs to be determined when the system
measures the interfering signal directly.” Appeal Br. 15.
4
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Sendyk teaches
complex coupling coefficients in its discussion of adaptive filters
coefficients 661 and 662 with respect to Figures 6A-6C. Ans. 7 (citing
Sendyk 179). As a further example, in discussing the receiver of Figure 6 A
Sendyk describes matrix M as a “2x2 matrix of complex numbers, each
representing the phase (and magnitude) of the propagation channel.”
Sendyk 158. Matrix M illustrates interaction in the propagation channel
between transmitter antennas 1 and 2 and receiver antennas 1 and 2. Id. We
agree therefore that Sendyk’s complex values in Matrix M that characterize
this interaction suggest “complex coupling coefficients,” as claimed, and
therefore we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Appellants argue Sendyk does not teach utilizing a decorrelation
algorithm because in Sendyk “there is no need to de-correlate any signals.”
Appeal Br. 15. We disagree. As noted above, the Examiner correctly finds
that Sendyk’s adaptive algorithms 663, 664 cancel or reduce the interfering
signal. Ans. 18 (citing Sendyk 170). Because adaptive algorithms 663, 664
are used to reduce interference between the signals received at 104a and
104b, they are de-correlation algorithms. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the adaptive filters of Sendyk reduce correlation,
which is a “connection or interdependence between two or more things,”
between the interfering signal and the received signal, and so a decorrelation
algorithm is described in Sendyk. Ans. 18.
Appellants argue Sendyk does not disclose “utilizing a de-correlation
algorithm across a frequency bandwidth comprising said desired and
crosstalk signals.” Appeal Br. 15—16. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Sendyk’s “decorrelation algorithm is utilized across a frequency
5
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
bandwidth comprising the received signal and the interfering signals since
both the received signal and the interfering signal are utilized to remove the
interference and output the recovered desired signal.” Ans. 23. We,
therefore, find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 20 are not separately argued and so
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 20 for similar reasons.
Appeal Br. 16. Claims 4—10 and 14—19 which variously depend from claims
1 and 11, are not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 17—25. Therefore, we
likewise sustain the rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 2
The Examiner finds Sendyk’s discussion of canceling an interfering
signal using either a least mean square adaptive algorithm or a recursive
least square adaptive algorithm teaches “the de-correlation algorithm
comprises a blind source separation algorithm,” as recited in dependent
claim 2. Final Act. 6; Ans. 24—25.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings are in error because “least
mean square and recursive least square algorithms do not teach a blind-
source separation algorithm and the Examiner has provided no support for
such an extrapolation.” Appeal Br. 17.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner fails
to explain how Sendyk’s discussion of a least mean square adaptive
algorithm or a recursive least square adaptive algorithm teaches “a blind
source separation algorithm,” as recited in dependent claim 2.
6
Appeal 2016-001334
Application 13/933,865
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and of claim 12, which recites commensurate
limitations.
Claim 3
The Examiner finds Milotta and Sendyk teaches or suggests
“approximating said crosstalk as linear within said frequency bandwidth,” as
recited in dependent claim 3. Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings are in error because the
“Final Office Action does not point to any figure or text that shows
approximating crosstalk as linear with the frequency bandwidth.” Appeal
Br. 18.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the Examiner fails
to explain how Milotta and Sendyk teaches, suggests, or renders obvious
approximating said crosstalk as linear within said frequency bandwidth.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 3, and of claim 13, which recites commensurate
limitations.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—11, and 14—
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 2, 3, 12, and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7