Ex Parte Yanduru et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2017

12613402 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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.
12/613,402 11/05/2009 Naveen Krishna Yanduru TI-38198A 6204
23494 7590 02/22/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DUC M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/22/2017 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 NAVEEN KRISHNA YANDURU,
GREGORY ERIC HOWARD, DANIELLE GRIFFITH,
and SRINIVASAN VENKATRAMAN
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,4021
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21—40, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Technology
The application relates to integrating “signal filters in a multiband
transceiver.” Spec. Abstract. Claims 21, 35, and 36 are illustrative and
reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
21. A multiband transceiver, comprising:
a first matching network associated with a first sroup of
communication protocols'.;
a first low noise amplifier coupling said first matching
network to a first high performance filter;
a first mixer coupled to said high performance filter:
a second matching network associated with another
communications protocol; and
a second low noise amplifier coupling said second
matching network to said high performance filter.
35. A multiband transceiver, comprising:
a first matching network associated with a first
communications protocol;
a first low noise amplifier coupling said first matching
network to a high performance filter;
a first mixer coupled to said high performance filter;
a second matching network associated with a second
communications protocol;
a second low noise amplifier couplins said second
matching network to a second mixer,
a third matching network associated with a third
communications protocol; and
a third low noise amplifier coupling said third matching
network to a third mixer.
36. The multiband transceiver of Claim 35, wherein first, second
and third communications protocols comprise the group
of: GPS, GSM DCS and GSM PCS.
Rejections
Claims 21 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination ofNakajima et al. (US 5,815,052; Sept. 29, 1998) and
Yeh (US 5,995,814; Nov. 30, 1999). Final Act. 18.
2
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
Claims 21—31 and 37-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Keski-Mattinen (US 6,405,025 Bl; June
11, 2002) and Kitazawa et al. (US 6,147,571; Nov. 14, 2000). Final Act. 19.
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination of Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, and Wang et al. (US
2007/0024377 Al; Feb. 1, 2007). Final Act. 23.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, and Tham et al. (US
6,049,702; Apr. 11, 2000). Final Act. 23.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Martin et al. (US 7,155,252 B2; Dec. 26, 2006),
Thomsen et al. (US 6,584,304 Bl; June 24, 2003), and Ghaem (US
5,634,203; May 27, 1997). Final Act. 24.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Martin, Thomsen, and Dent et al. (US
2002/0101907 Al; Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 25.
Claims 21—40 stand rejected on the grounds of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 12—16 of US 7,680,477.
Final Act. 27.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Nakajima teaches or suggests
“a first matching network associated with a first group of communication
protocols,” as recited in independent claim 21?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Keski-Mattinen teaches or
suggests “a first matching network associated with a first group of
communication protocols,” as recited in independent claim 21?
3
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
3. Did the Examiner err in finding Martin teaches or suggests “a
second low noise amplifier coupling said second matching network to a
second mixer” and “a third low noise amplifier coupling said third matching
network to a third mixer,” as recited in independent claim 35?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Martin teaches or suggests
“first, second and third communications protocols comprise the group of:
GPS, GSM DCS and GSM PCS,” as recited in dependent claim 36?
5. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 21—40 for
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 12—16 of US 7,680,477?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
A) Nakajima & Yeh (Claims 21 and 37)
Independent claim 21 recites “a first matching network associated
with a first group of communication protocolsIndependent claim 37
recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner relies on Nakajima for teaching this limitation,
specifically Nakajima’s “PDC system.” Ans. 17; Final Act. 3. Appellants
contend “PDC is a single communication protocol, NOT a ‘GROUP of
communication protocols.’” App. Br. 11.
We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner’s argument that
“Claim 21 and 37 does not recite a filter that supports two communication
protocols” (Ans. 21), both claims expressly recite a “group of
communication protocols,” which requires two or more protocols.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 37 as obvious over Nakajima and Yeh.
4
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
B) Keski-Mattinen & Kitazawa (Claims 21—31, 37—40);
Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, & Wang (Claim 32); and
Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, & Tham (Claims 33, 34)
As discussed above, independent claims 21 and 37 recite a first
matching network with “a first group of communication protocols.’ '’
Appellants contend the “Examiner is confusing the concept of
‘different frequency ranges (or bands)’ with the concept of ‘network systems
of different standards (or communication protocols).”’ App. Br. 16. “The
dual band GSM system described by Keski-Mattinen is a single
communication protocol standard having two frequency ranges.” Id. at 17.
The Examiner relies on the background of Keski-Mattinen, which
states “efforts have been made to develop radio communication devices
which can operate in several different frequency ranges and/or in network
systems of different standards.” Keski-Mattinen 1:34—37 (emphasis added);
Ans. 24—25. The Examiner further asserts “different frequencies would
obviously provide different standards.” Ans. 25. “Therefore, absent the
showing of a specific structural for different standards, the examiner
believes that it would have been obvious within the ability of one skilled in
the art at the time the invention was made to provide a communication
device operating in different communication standards as claimed.” Id.
We note Appellants’ assertion that GSM is necessarily a single
protocol is contradicted by the Specification, which distinguishes between
“GSM DCS” and “GSM PCS” as separate protocols. See Spec. 130, Figs.
4a-4b, claim 36. Nevertheless, even if Keski-Mattinen did teach a system
using different standards, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has
not shown why it would be obvious for a group of protocols to share an
amplifier, filter, and mixer as claimed in claims 21 and 37 of the present
5
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
application. Compare Spec. Fig. 4a (depicting GSM DCS and GSM PCS
having separate amplifiers and mixers), with Fig. 4b (depicting GSM DCS
and GSM PCS sharing an amplifier, filter, and mixer).
The Examiner does not rely on Kitazawa (claims 21—34 and 37-40),
Wang (claim 32), or Tham (claims 33 and 34) to cure the above deficiency
in Keski-Mattinen. See Final Act. 19—24.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21
and 37, and their dependent claims 22—34 and 38-40 as obvious over Keski-
Mattinen and the other cited references.
C) Martin & Others (Claim 35)
Independent claim 35 recites “a [second / third] low noise amplifier
coupling said [second / third] matching network to a [second / third] mixer.”
The Examiner relies on two cumulative combinations of references as
rendering claim 35 obvious: (1) Martin, Thomsen, and Ghaem, and
(2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent. Final Act. 24—26. Martin teaches a filter
between the amplifier and the mixer, which Appellants contend fails to meet
the claimed “amplifier coupling . . . to a . . . mixer.” App. Br. 30-31, 34—35.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants have not
identified anything in the term or in the Specification that would limit
“coupling” to “directly coupling.” See, e.g., Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm
Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Qualcomm has not provided
convincing evidence that the ordinary meaning of ‘selectively couples’
requires a direct or physical connection.”); Bradford Co. v. ConteyorN. Am.,
Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court erroneously
construed the term ‘coupled to,’ and we hold that the term should be
construed broadly so as to allow an indirect attachment.”).
6
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 35 as obvious over
(1) Martin, Thomsen, and Ghaem, and (2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent.
D) Martin & Others (Claim 36)
Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and further recites “first, second and
third communications protocols comprise the group of: GPS, GSM DCS and
GSM PCS.” The Examiner concludes “a recitation with respect to the
manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not
differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the
claimed structural limitations,” and therefore finds Martin teaching
W-CDMA protocols is sufficient. Ans. 33.
We do not agree that specific communication protocols in claim 36
are only an “intended use.” Although other prior art may be able to
demonstrate the obviousness of a protocol such as GPS or GSM PCS, the
Examiner’s reliance on W-CDMA protocols here fails to make a prima facie
case.
Accordingly, given the record before us, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 as obvious over (1) Martin, Thomsen,
and Ghaem, and (2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent.
Double Patenting
A) Claims 21—34
Independent claim 21 recites “a first low noise amplifier coupling said
first matching network to a first high performance filter” and “a second low
noise amplifier coupling said second matching network to said high
performance filter.'1'’
7
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
However, we agree with Appellants that in claims 12—16 of US
7,680,477, “there is no requirement that the second amplifier be coupled to
any ‘filter’ much less the same high performance filter that is coupled to the
first matching network.” App. Br. 42.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 21 or dependent claims 22—34 for double patenting.
B) Claims 36 40
We note independent claim 37 does not require the second amplifier
to be coupled to any filter and thus the argument above would not apply.
However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided any
claim chart or analysis for claim 37 aside from the conclusion “claims 21-40
are made obvious by claims 12-16 of US 7,680,477.” Ans. 37 (emphasis
omitted); App. Br. 43.
Claim 36, which depends from claim 35, also was not separately
analyzed for double patenting.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 36—
40 for double patenting.
C) Claim 35
For independent claim 35, Appellants rely on “the same arguments”
as used against independent claim 21. Reply Br. 13. However, claim 35
does not require the second amplifier to be coupled to any filter, so that
argument is moot. See App. Br. 42.
Appellants also argue against claim 21 (and by extension claim 35)
because “[i]n claim 12 of US 7,680,477, it is the tunable LC filter that
couples the amplifier to the mixer, whereas in pending Claim 21, it is the
first low noise amplifier that couples the first matching network to the high
8
Appeal 2014-000008
Application 12/613,402
performance filter.” App. Br. 41. However, Appellants fail to adequately
explain any conflict in these teachings. We agree with the Examiner that
claim 12 of US 7,680,477 requires “an amplifier coupled to the matching
network” and “a tunable LC filter having an input coupled to an output of
the amplifier and an output coupled to a mixer.” Ans. 36. Thus, the system
couples (1) a matching network, (2) an amplifier, (3) a filter, and (4) a
mixer, exactly as in the present application. Appellants have not identified
any error in the Examiner’s finding this renders obvious claim 35 of the
present application.
We also note Appellants have not identified any way the level of
ordinary skill in the art or secondary considerations affect the obviousness of
claim 35 given the unambiguous teachings of US 7,680,477. See App. Br.
38-39; Reply Br. 13-16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 for
double patenting.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claim 35 for obviousness and double patenting.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—34 and 36-40
for obviousness and double patenting.
No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9