Ex Parte Ugawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2018

13907713 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/907,713 05/31/2013 Hiroaki Ugawa
126187 7590 07/23/2018
Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
900 Second A venue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
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.
20120108-02 1086
EXAMINER
ZAKARIA, AKM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2868
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2018 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):
keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com
notice.legal@keysight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROAKI UGA WA
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-9 of Application 13/907,713
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Final Act. (June 30, 2016) 4--14. Appellant 1 seeks
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to a method of measuring
impedance in electrical components and an apparatus for same. In one
aspect, the method is described as including connecting a device under test
(DUT) in series or parallel to a signal line with respect to a signal source,
transmitting a measurement signal from the signal source through the signal
line, and measuring an input signal into the DUT, a reflected signal reflected
from the DUT, and a passed signal passed through the DUT. Spec. ,r 10.
Scattering parameters (S-parameters) S11 and S21 based on respective
measured values of the input signal, reflected signal, and passed signal are
calculated; and an impedance Zx of the DUT is calculated from S-parameters
and a characteristic impedance. Id. ,r,r 10, 33.
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. An impedance measurement method comprising:
connecting a device under test (DUT) characterized by a
DUT input and a DUT output, in series to a signal line with
respect to a signal source and a load device, said DUT input
being connected to said signal line and said DUT output being
connected to said load device;
transmitting a measurement signal from the signal source
through the signal line;
measuring an input signal into the DUT, a reflected
signal reflected from the DUT, and a passed signal passed
through the DUT into said load device while the DUT input is
connected to the signal line, the DUT output is connected to the
load device, and the measurement signal is transmitted through
the signal line;
calculating S-parameters S11 and S21 based on respective
measured values of the input signal, reflected signal and passed
signal; and calculating an impedance Zx of the DUT from a
ratio of S11 divided by S21 and a characteristic impedance.
2
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Wang et al. 2 in view of Agilent. 3 Final Act. 4--6.
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang in
view of Agilent and further in view of Adamian 4 and Y acoubian et
al. 5 Id. at 6-8.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Adamian in view of Agilent. Id. at 8-10.
4. Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Adamian in view of Mow et al. 6 Id. at 10-13.
5. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Adamian in view of Mow, and further in view of Yacoubian.
Id. at 13-14.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 2 as obvious over
Wang and Agilent. Id. at 4--6.
2 US 2005/0093554 Al, published May 5, 2005.
3 Agilent Technologies, User's Guide, 8719ET/20ET/22ET,
8719ES/20ES/22ES, Network Analyzers (1999-2002, 2012).
4 US 7,068,049 B2, issued June 27, 2006.
5 US 5,656,973, issued Aug. 12, 1997.
6 US 2013/0234741 Al, published Sept. 12, 2013.
3
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that the primary reference,
Wang, lacks an explicit teaching of calculating impedance Zx from a ratio of
S11 to S21 . Id. at 6. The Examiner further found that the secondary
reference, Agilent, teaches such calculation. Id. (citing Agilent, 6-23, 7-23,
7-26, 7-27, and 7-40).
The Examiner additionally found that Wang teaches "measuring ... a
passed signal (V 2M) passed through the DUT into said load device ( 16, 23 or
25)." Id. at 5.
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is in error on two bases.
Appeal Br. 6-7. First, Appellant argues that the cited references do not
teach impedance Zx. Id. Appellant argues that the Examiner found merely
that Wang teaches "a system that is capable of performing" the claimed
measurement and that this falls short of what is required for unpatentability.
Id. at 6. Appellant further argues that the Specification includes an explicit
definition of Zx that differs from the impedance of Agilent. Id. at 7.
Claim 1 specifies that it pertains to an impedance measurement
method where the device under test (DUT) is connected "in series." Appeal
Br. 16 (Claims App.). The claim further requires "calculating an impedance
Zx of the DUT from a ratio of S11 divided by S21 and a characteristic
impedance." Id.
In regard to impedance Zx of the DUT when connected in series ( as
required by claim 1 ), the Specification provides as follows:
With the DUT, there are four vector voltage ratios, in
other words, four S-parameters, and among these, S 11 expresses
4
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
reflection from the input port of the DUT. S21 expresses
forward direction transmission through the DUT. To express
these as formulas:
S21 = b2/a1 =2Zo/(Zx+2Zo),
S11 = b/a1=Zx/(Zx+2Zo).
By taking the ratio of the two,
is obtained and Zx is thereby determined. If Zx divided by Z0 is
written as "zx," zx is expressed by:
zx = 2S11/S21.
This is the formula that expresses the method according to the
present invention for impedance measurement of the serially
connected DUT.
Spec. ,r 33; see also Fig. l(a). Thus, in view of the foregoing, the impedance
Zx of claim 1 is defined as Zx = 2ZoS11/S21.
In the Answer, the Examiner indicates that "[i]t is common
knowledge to [those ofJ ordinary skill in the art that NA apparatus used in
the prior art references of Wang, Agilent, Mow and Adamian is capable of
S-parameters or complex impedance measurement and additionally they are
also teaching method to obtain those measurement similar to that of the
Appellant." Answer 7-8. The Examiner then cites to certain portions of
Agilent described as teaching impedance measurements. Id. at 8. The
Examiner does not, however, cite to any disclosure of the impedance Zx as
defined by the Specification and required by claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that the cited references,
Wang and Agilent, teach impedance Zx.
5
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
The Appellant's second argument against the rejection of claim 1
concerns the claim element "measuring ... a passed signal passed through
the DUT into said load device while the DUT input is connected to the
signal line, the DUT output is connected to the load device, and the
measurement signal is transmitted through the signal line." Appeal Br. 6-7,
16 (Claims App.). Appellant asserts that each figure of Wang shows a
measuring device on the same side as signal source 14 rather than the same
side as the load 23. Id. at 7. Accordingly, Appellant argues, there is no
measurement of a signal that is passed through the DUT. Id. Figures 2 and
4 from Wang are reproduced below for reference.
30--/
NElWORK
A.NAL'l"2ER
S·PARAMETER
CALCULATOR
FIG. 2
6
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
""""=~- ?1 DUT
>"" <~'!\\~
""Y- .2:!'l
v NETWORK
.ANALVZ.ER
S,PA.RA!'itETER
CA.LC(.J:l.A TOR
FIG. 4
Figure 2 of Wang depicts a configuration of the system 20 where DUT 12 is
operatively connected with the source 14, which supplies an input signal V 1
to the input port Pl of the DUT, and a matched load 23, having an
impedance indicated at ZM1, is connected at the output port P2. Wang ,r 49.
Figure 4 of Wang depicts system 20 where DUT 12 is operatively connected
with the source 14, which supplies an input signal V 2 to the output port P2 of
the DUT, and a matched load 25, having an impedance indicated at ZM2, is
connected at the input port Pl. Id. ,r 53. Neither figure depicts an NA probe
arranged to detect a signal that has passed through the DUT.
The Examiner, citing ,r 2 of Wang, determines that Wang teaches
measurement of "pass thru" signals. Answer 8 ( emphasis omitted).
Paragraph 2 of Wang teaches to measure the accuracy of a network by
determining its S-parameters which are "indicative of the degree of signal
transmission and reflection at the ports of the network." Wang ,r 2.
7
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
While this teaching does concern signal transmission through a device
under test, it does not teach or suggest measuring a signal "passed through
the DUT" as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellant has shown reversible error in the rejection of
claim 1.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires "connecting the
DUT between a first port and a second port of a network analyzer, with one
of the ports being connected to a signal source and the other being connected
to said load device." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner found
that Wang teaches the limitations of claim 2. Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that Wang teaches a network analyzer with only a
single port. Id. at 8. Appellant further argues that Wang teaches only a
configuration where the single connection to the network analyzer is on the
same side as the measurement signal. Id. Accordingly, Appellant argues,
the DUT is not taught to be "between" two ports of a network analyzer.
In the Answer, the Examiner further determines that it is "common
knowledge" that other network analyzers perform measurements at two ports
on the DUT. Answer 9 ( emphasis omitted).
As discussed in connection with claim 1, Wang teaches a network
analyzer with a single port. Accordingly, it does not teach "connecting the
DUT between a first port and a second port of a network analyzer." Nor
does the Examiner's determination that it is "common knowledge" that other
network analyzers perform measurements at two ports cure such defects as
there is no adequate explanation of how or why such teachings would be
combined. See Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. Info USA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
8
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[T]o invoke 'common sense' or any other basis for
extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, [the factfinder]
must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.").
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further requires that "each of said
measurements is made in respective cases of interchange of the signal source
and the load device by a switch to obtain a geometric mean ( GM) value of
Zx, determined in the respective cases, as a function of frequency of the
measurement signal." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
As determined above, neither Wang nor Agilent has been shown to
teach taking a measurement passed through the DUT. Accordingly, it
follows that such references do not teach to take a measurement of the signal
passed through the DUT by interchange of the signal source and the load
device.
Claim 4
Claim 4 is an independent claim to an impedance measurement
apparatus. The Examiner found that each limitation of claim 4 is taught by
Adamian in view of Agilent. Final Act. 8-10. Appellant argues that the
cited references fail to teach "a DUT" and fail to teach "an impedance Zx of
the DUT." Appeal Br. 9-10.
For the same reasons as set forth with regard to claim 1, Agilent fails
to teach impedance Zx as required by the claims. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 4 is in error.
9
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
Claim 5
Claim 5 is an independent claim to an impedance measurement
method. Claim 5 stands rejected as obvious over Adamian in view of Mow.
Final Act. 10-12. The claim requires the step of "calculating an impedance
Zx of the DUT from a ratio of S11 divided by S21 and a characteristic
impedance." Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The Examiner found that the
primary reference, Adamian, lacks an explicit teaching of several elements
of the claim, including impedance Zx. Final Act. 11. The Examiner found
that the secondary reference, Mow teaches impedance Zx as follows:
However, Mow teaches ... calculating an impedance Zx
(para. [0081] - obtain S 11 complex impedance measurement
and/or an S21 complex forward transfer coefficient
measurement) of the DUT (100) from a ratio of S 11 divided by
S21 and a characteristic impedance ( desired impedance
characteristics in step 304 in figure 11 ).
Final Act. 11. Mow ,r 81 provides as follows:
Tester 232 may, for example, obtain an Sll ( complex
impedance) measurement and/ or an S21 ( complex forward
transfer coefficient) measurement. The values of Sll and S21
(phase and magnitude) may be measured at fundamental
frequency f0 ( as an example).
Mow ,r 81. In regard to ,r 81, Appellant argues that "[ t ]he paragraph only
states that a complex impedance measurement can be calculated. There is
no teaching of Zx as defined in the present application in the cited
paragraph." Appeal Br. 12.
The Examiner additionally cites to Figure 11 of Mow which teaches
the following step: "ADJUST LOAD-PULL TUNERS TO EXHIBIT
DESIRED IMPEDANCE CHARACTERISTICS (E.G., VSWR = [1:1, 5:1,
10:1] LOAD-PULL PHASE= [O, 45°, 90°, ... , 315°])." Mow, Fig. 11.
10
Appeal2017-007463
Application 13/907, 713
Appellant argues that "this step refers to adjusting the impedance of the load
pull tuners, i.e., the load device identified by the Examiner. This is not the
impedance of the DUT, no less Zx as defined in the present application."
Appeal Br. 12.
A preponderance of the evidence supports Appellant's argument that
the cited portions of Mow do not teach impedance Zx for a DUT connected
in parallel as defined by the Specification. See Spec. ,r 55; Fig. l(b).
Claims 6-9
Claims 6-9 each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 5. For the
same reasons set forth with regard to claim 5, Appellant has shown error in
the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-9 are reversed.
REVERSED
11