Ex Parte Ruitenburg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

10516548 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte LEONARDUS JOSEPH MICHAEL RUITENBURG,
FRANCOIS JOEL SENESCHAL,
JAN VAN SINDEREN,
and ROBBERT PETER FORTUIN
_____________

Appeal 2010-005221
Application 10/516,548
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BRYAN F. MOORE, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005221
Application 10/516,548

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a receiver signal strength indication
circuit, and to an integrated tuner comprising such a circuit. See Spec.
p. 1, ll.1-2.

Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A receiver signal strength indication circuit receiving a
discretely controlled amplified signal from an amplifying
means (A1-A4), the circuit comprising:
narrow filter means coupled to an output of the discretely
controlled amplifying means (A1-A4), said narrow filter
means providing a limited spectrum of the input signal;
logarithmic detector means for receiving and
logarithmically amplifying an output of the narrow filter;
analog-to-digital (ADC) means for converting the output
of the logarithmic detector to a digital receiver signal strength
indication; and
memory means to store an amplification setting of the
discretely controlled amplifying means relative to a first radio-
frequency (RF) input level and the digital receiver signal
strength indication, wherein the stored amplification setting is
configured to serve as a reference to tune the circuit for a
subsequent RF input level.

Appeal 2010-005221
Application 10/516,548

3
REFERENCES
Lampe US 5,852,772 Dec. 22, 1998
Jacques US 2002/0048267 A1 Apr. 25, 2002
Katsura US 6,683,925 B1 Jan. 27, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Katsura and Jacques. Ans. 3-5.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Katsura, Jacques, and Lampe. Ans. 5-
6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Katsura discloses “narrow filter
means coupled to an output of the discretely controlled amplifying means (A
1-A4), said narrow filter means providing a limited spectrum of the input
signal” recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Katsura and Jacques
Claims 1 and 4
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4. Claim 1 recites “narrow filter means
coupled to an output of the discretely controlled amplifying means (A 1-A4),
said narrow filter means providing a limited spectrum of the input signal.”
Appellants argue “the low-pass filter of Katsura is not a narrow filter
because a low-pass filter is a different type of filter. Specifically, Appellants
Appeal 2010-005221
Application 10/516,548

4
contend that the low-pass filter of Katsura is not a band-pass filter.” App. Br.
8 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument.
The Examiner finds “claim 1 recites ‘narrow filter’, but the claim fails
to clearly mention the narrow filter is a narrow band-pass filter having two
cutoff frequencies where the frequency signals above and below the cutoff
frequencies are attenuated.” Ans. 7. We agree. Appellants contend that a
“narrow filter” should be interpreted as a bandpass filter. However, we note
that Appellants have not provided, nor does Appellants’ Specification give, a
specific definition for the term “narrow filter.”
Appellants assert that the “narrow filter means” limitation is recited in
means-plus-function format. Reply Br. 7. As a result, Appellants assert the
corresponding structure is a band-pass filter. App. Br. 4 (citing Spec. p. 1, ll.
18-21; Fig. 1; Rep. Br. 8-9). However, Appellants indicate in the “Summary
of Claimed Subject Matter” section of the Appeal Brief that one example of
a narrow filter is a bandpass filter, leaving the term “narrow” open to
interpretation. Additionally, nothing in the Specification specifically refers
to the narrow filter as a bandpass filter. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation
of “narrow filter” as including a low pass filter that only passes the desired
channel signal (Ans. 7) is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that Katsura
teaches a narrow filter. We therefore find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and its dependent claim 4, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) – Katsura, Jacques, and Lampe
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Katsura, Jacques, and Lampe
Appeal 2010-005221
Application 10/516,548

5
relies on the same interpretation of “narrow filter means” discussed above.
See Ans. 3-6. Therefore, for the same reasons as discussed above, we find
no error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 3
over Katsura, Jacques, and Lampe.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, and 4 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

msc