Ex Parte Zeong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12717562 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
12/717,562 03/04/2010 Jong-Wook Zeong 1235-666 (SPI0006) 3046
66547 7590 02/27/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
KIM, WESLEY LEO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONG-WOOK ZEONG, HAN-GUE PARK, BUM-MAN KIM,
JAE-SUP LEE, and JIN-SUNG CHOI
Appeal 2016-002628
Application 12/717,5621
Technology Center 2600
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, LARRY J. HUME, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—12, which constitute all the pending claims.
Non Final Act. 3—5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002628
Application 12/717,562
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The disclosed and claimed inventions relate to a method for achieving
a high gain and improving linearity and efficiency of a power amplifier by
compensating a gain change according to variation of supply voltage in a
transmitter. Abstract, Spec. H 2, 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on
appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A transmission method for improving linearity of a
terminal, the method comprising:
when receiving a transmit signal, generating, by a
modulation signal generator, a modulation signal modulated
from the transmit signal, an average output level and an
amplitude with respect to the modulation signal,
receiving, by a Read Only Memory (ROM), the average
output level and generating a peak amplitude', and
generating, by an amplitude shaper, a gain value using the
peak amplitude and the amplitude, and generating magnitude
information by adding an offset value and the gain value.
App. Br. 10. (Claims Appx.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rozenblit et al. (US 8,073,410 B2, iss. Dec. 6, 2011)
(“Rozenblit”) in view of Sun et al. (US 2007/0232250 Al, pub. Oct. 4,
2007) (“Sun”). Non Final Act. 3—5.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, the Examiner acknowledges that
Rozenblit does not teach the claim 1 limitation receiving, by a Read Only
Memory (ROM), the average output level and generating a peak amplitude.
2
Appeal 2016-002628
Application 12/717,562
App. Br. 4. Appellants then argue the Examiner errs by relying on Sun to
teach a ROM is implemented to output the average output level and
generating peak amplitude wherein the demodulator within the base station
is able to demodulate received information to the base station. Id. 4—5.
(citing Sun || 68, 70; Fig. 15). Appellants further argue the Examiner
misinterprets Rozenblit because Rozenblit is directed to diverting power in a
closed loop to form a feedback loop which differs from improving linearity
of the transmission method of claim 1. Id. at 7
According to Appellants, Figure 15 of Sun merely shows components
of a base station, with one component being a memory (1524) and provides
no details regarding the memory. Id. at 5 (citing Fig. 15; 1 68). Appellants
argue paragraph 70 of Sun is also deficient because it merely lists
“constellation regions” and memories without teaching the disputed
limitation. Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds Rozenblit discloses the use of a ROM within the
base station but “does not specifically disclose wherein the ROM is utilized
to receive the average output level and generating a peak amplitude as
disclosed by claim 1.” Ans. 7; see also Non Final Act. 4. The Examiner
finds Rozenblit’s closed loop power control calibration software 255 stored
in memory is utilized to control the closed loop power control calibration.
Id. at 8. (citing Rozenblit 3:45—49). The Examiner further finds
“[specifically average output level and amplitude values are stored in
memory, in the form of software (255) implemented values to help
determine values of closed loop power calibration.” Id. The Examiner then
explains the different values which contribute to the closed loop power
control values of the closed loop power calibration:
3
Appeal 2016-002628
Application 12/717,562
The Rozenblit reference continues to disclose wherein the
average output level is an AM signal supplied by the modulator
146 is an intermediate frequency (IF) AM signal with a constant
(average) power level that is supplied as a reference signal
(V.sub.REF) to the reference variable gain element. The
examiner believes the operation of the power control element
285 described below utilizes the amplitude value of the
amplitude modulated signal with a specific average power level
that is supplied as a reference signal, is utilized as values by the
software to help determine the closed loop power configuration
of Rozenblit.
The examiner has cited the Sun reference specifically to teach
wherein a ROM is utilized within a base station, and not merely
for the fact that a ROM component exists within a base station.
Specifically, the Sun reference base station 1502 which
comprises memory component 1524 which is operatively
coupled to a processor component 1514 that can store
information. Demodulator 1512 within base station 1502 able to
demodulate the received information received to the base station.
Id. 8-9.
In the Reply, Appellants argue, and we agree, the Examiner’s findings
and legal conclusions are conclusory. Reply Br. 1—5 (citing Ans. 8).
Regarding the Examiner’s explanation of Rozenblit’s different values which
contribute to the closed loop power control values of the closed loop power
calibration, Appellants argue the Examiner’s findings “merely discuss
different values that the Examiner believes contribute to the closed loop
power control calibration of Rozenblit, and fails to show where Rozenblit
discloses receiving, by a Read Only Memory (ROM), the average output
level and generating a peak amplitude, as recited in Claim 1.” Reply
Br. 2—3 (citing Rozenblit 3:45—49).
4
Appeal 2016-002628
Application 12/717,562
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As held by the Supreme
Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection must be based on some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, the record presents insufficient factual evidence to support the
Examiner’s legal conclusion of obviousness and, therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 4, 7, and 10 which
recite the disputed limitation in commensurate form. We also do not sustain
the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Cf. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[Djependent claims are
nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious . . . .”). Because our decision with regard to the disputed
limitation is dispositive of the rejection of these claims, we do not address
additional arguments raised by Appellants.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5