Ex Parte Yuan

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2011

11099460 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JIREN YUAN
____________

Appeal 2009-008978
Application 11/099,460
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 32-34, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 1-31
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-008978
Application 11/099,460

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 11, 2008) and the Answer (mailed
November 18, 2008) for the respective details.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a front-end sampling radio receiver
apparatus utilizing first and second band-pass charge sampling circuits rather
than conventional voltage sampling circuits. The band-pass charge sampling
circuits integrate an input charge during a window of time and a bandwidth
in which signal charges can be effectively integrated, while outside the
bandwidth the signal charges are completely or substantially canceled. See
generally Spec. 11:16-12:3 and 17:16-18:9.

Claim 32 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
32. A front-end sampling radio receiver apparatus having a
first and second band-pass charge sampling circuit comprising:
a low pass filter with a bandwidth up to twice the clock frequency for
receiving and filtering a radio signal, thereby producing a filtered signal;
a low noise amplifier for producing a differentially amplified radio
signal from the filtered signal;
a local oscillator for producing an I-clock signal at its signal output;
and
a π/2 phase shifter with a signal input connected to the local oscillator
for producing a Q-clock signal at its signal output with the same amplitude
and π/2 phase shift with respect to said I-clock signal;
wherein two ends of the signal output pair of said low noise amplifier
are respectively connected both to the first band-pass charge sampling
circuit and the second band-pass charge sampling circuit respectively, said I-
clock signal output is connected to a clock input of said first band-pass
charge sampling circuit, and said Q-clock signal output is connected to a
clock input of said second band-pass charge sampling circuit, for producing
Appeal 2009-008978
Application 11/099,460

3
base-band I-samples of said radio signal at a signal output or output pair of
said first band-pass charge sampling circuit, base-band Q samples of said
radio signal at the signal output or output pair of said second band-pass
charge sampling circuit.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Jakobsson US 6,246,867 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
(filed Nov. 17, 1998)
Tanji US 6,943,618 B1 Sep. 13, 2005
(filed May 13, 1999)

Claims 32-34, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jakobsson in view of Tanji.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 32, based on the combination of Jakobsson and Tanji,
focus on the alleged deficiency of either reference, taken alone or in
combination, of teaching or suggesting the claimed invention. According to
Appellant (App. Br. 7-8), neither of the applied Jakobsson or Tanji
references discloses a band-pass charge sampling circuit as claimed. In a
related argument (App. Br. 6), Appellant contends the Examiner has
improperly interpreted the claimed “band-pass charge sampling circuit” as
being any band-pass circuit operated by a clock signal.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has improperly interpreted
the claim language “band-pass charge sampling circuit” and, in particular,
has improperly ignored the word “charge” when construing the language of
appealed claim 32. Appellant’s disclosed invention focuses on an improved
Appeal 2009-008978
Application 11/099,460

4
sampling circuit used for analog-to-digital conversion, the advantages of
which are implemented by using a charge sampling circuit rather than the
traditional voltage circuit (Spec. 1:7-8 and 3:26-4:20). This disclosed
charge sampling circuit feature is specifically set forth in independent claim
32.
We further agree with Appellant that when the language of claim 32 is
properly construed, neither Jakobsson nor Tanji discloses, alone or in
combination, the claimed invention since neither reference discloses a band-
pass charge sampling circuit. We recognize that the Examiner directs
attention (Ans. 6) to the A/D converter 350 in Jakobsson as corresponding to
the claimed band-pass charge sampling circuit. To whatever extent the
Examiner may be correct that an A/D converter necessarily performs
sampling, we find no disclosure in Jakobsson to indicate that charge
sampling is being performed rather than the conventional voltage sampling.
Further, the Examiner has not provided any evidence to support the
conclusion that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized and
appreciated that charge sampling is necessarily being performed in
Jakobsson.
Similarly, while the Examiner (Ans. 8) points to the demodulator 50
in Tanji as performing a charge sampling function, we find no disclosure in
Tanji to support this assertion. Further, as with Jakobsson, the Examiner has
provided no evidence to support the position that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would recognize that charge sampling is being performed.
With the above discussion in mind, it is apparent to us that even
assuming, arguendo, that the Examiner provided a proper basis for
Appeal 2009-008978
Application 11/099,460

5
combining the disclosures of Jakobsson and Tanji, the resulting combination
would not satisfy the claimed features present in appealed independent claim
32. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 32, nor of claims 33 and 34 dependent
thereon.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that Appellants have shown
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32-34 for obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 32-34, all of
the appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw