INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 14, 2020

14449326 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2020)

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.
14/449,326 08/01/2014 Thomas Magesacher INFAP394US 8499
51092 7590 10/14/2020
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/14/2020 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THOMAS MAGESACHER, PETER SINGERL,
MARTIN MATALN, and CHRISTAIN SCHUBERTH
___________________

Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 and 20–25, which constitute all of
the pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 4. The Examiner has objected to claim 19
as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would otherwise be
allowable if rewritten in independent form to include the limitations of the

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Aug. 1, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Final Office
Action, mailed Jan. 24, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 24,
2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 24, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Feb. 28, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Infineon Technologies AG as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

2
base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a system
for modifying input/output signals of digital pre/post distortion of non-linear
components (e.g. use of power amplifier for wire/wireless communications)
by modeling them with a segment-wise piecewise polynomial approximation
to mitigate the unwanted effects resulting from out-of-bands emissions and
in-band distortions components. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 19, 20. Figure 1 is discussed
and reproduced below:

Figure 1 illustrates non-linear system (100) including nonlinear component
(102) for generating linear characteristics in output (112), which is improved
by distortion component (104) to thereby reduce nonlinearity characteristics
of the output signal and mitigate distortion thereof. Spec. ¶ 21.
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

3
As depicted in Figure 1 above, upon receiving input signal (110),
nonlinear component (104) processes the input signal to generate a nonlinear
output, and applies to a segment thereof a generated model of nonlinearity of
nonlinear component based on a segment-wise piecewise polynomial
approximation to decrease the nonlinearity of output (112). Id. ¶¶ 19–23.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 13, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
A nonlinear system for mitigating nonlinearity from a
nonlinear behavior having memory or exhibiting a memory
effect comprising:
a memory storing executable components; and
a processor, coupled to the memory, configured to execute or
facilitate execution of the executable components, the executable
components comprising:
a nonlinear component configured to process an input and
provide an output that comprises a nonlinearity;
a distortion component configured to generate a model of the
nonlinearity of the nonlinear component based on a segment-wise
piecewise polynomial approximation and provide a model output that
decreases the nonlinearity; and
a distortion core component configured to generate an
approximation of the nonlinearity by applying the segment-wise
piecewise polynomial approximation to a segment of the nonlinearity.

Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

4
Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Jin US 6,642,786 B1 Nov. 4, 2003
Singerl US 2008/0032642 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Jiang US 2010/0253425 A1 Oct. 7, 2010
Azadet US 2014/0314181 A1 Oct. 23, 2014

IV. REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–18, and 20–25, as follows:
1. Claims 1–17, 20–23, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jiang, Azadet, and
Singerl. Final Act. 5–21.
2. Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jiang, Azadet, Singerl,
and Jin. Final Act. 21–23.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in,
pages 3–8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1–8 of the Reply Brief. We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2–25; Ans. 3–5. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.

4 The Examiner has objected to claim 19 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten in independent
form to include the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 24.
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

5
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
the combination of Jiang, Azadet, and Singerl does not teach or suggest
applying a segment-wise piecewise polynomial approximation to a segment
of the nonlinearity. Appeal Br. 3. In particular, Appellant argues the
following:
Jiang discloses a predistortion solution for the linearization of
power amplifiers, especially with memory effects. (See, Abstract, first
sentence). A predistorter signal is generated from an input signal (e.g.,
Xn) based on (Pkq), where Pkq a complex valued function of a single
complex variable. (See, Abstract, second sentence). Further, where z,
y are inputs and outputs of a PA, for every input Zn there is a sequence
yn. Where Q is a length of the memory effect, a function of the output
Zn is based on a function P as a multivariate function with the Q
variable. (See, para. [0011]). This multivariate function
P can be approximated by a sum of separable functions, and each Pkq
is a function of one complex variable (see, para. [0013]), where each
Pkq can be computed using polynomials (see, para. [0014]). However,
Jiang is silent with respect to applying a segmentwise piecewise
polynomial approximation to a segment of the nonlinearity.

Id. at 4 (citing Jiang ¶¶ 11, 13, 14).
Therefore, Appellant argues that although Jiang discloses using
coefficients of polynomials to an input signal Xn to generate a pre-distortion
model for linearizing a power amplifier, and thereby teaches computing an
approximation function y(t) using polynomials, Jiang does not teach
applying a piecewise polynomial approximation to a segment of nonlinearity
output function Y(t). Id. at 5–6 (citing Jiang ¶¶ 9–13). Further, Appellant
argues that Jiang’s disclosure of using a direct-approximation method
consisting lookup tables (LUTs) to implement a Pkq function does not teach
the disputed limitations either. Id. at 6 (citing Jiang ¶ 17). Furthermore,
Appellant argues Azadet’s disclosure of obtaining a LUT with polynomial
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

6
interpolation representing a nonlinear function with entries as polynomial
coefficients for different segments teaches applying linear interpolation
between segments to improve continuity of output segments, as opposed to
applying a polynomial approximation to a segment of nonlinearity. Id. at 6–7
(citing Azadet ¶¶ 8, 21, 22, 38). According to Appellant, Azadet’s
evaluation of a polynomial for the LUT does not teach applying a
polynomial approximation to a segment of the LUT. Id. at 7. Additionally,
Appellant argues Singerl’s disclosure of alleged improvement of the circuit
design flexibility of pre-distortion does not cure the noted deficiencies. Id. at
7.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Jiang
discloses a pre-distorter that uses a piecewise polynomial to linearize the
output of high power amplifier (HPA). (Jiang, Abstr., ¶¶ 3, 7, 17). Jiang
alternatively discloses the pre-distorter using an algorithm for implementing
memory polynomials by computing LUTs through a direct approximation
method, which is more stable and accurate than the polynomials method. Id.
¶¶17, 20. We agree with the Examiner that Jiang’s disclosed embodiment of
the pre-distorter using a piecewise polynomial taken in combination with
Jiang’s disclosed alternative embodiment of using a polynomial
approximation method to linearize the output of the HPA would have
predictably resulted in a stable and accurate method for applying a segment-
wise piecewise polynomial approximation to a segment of the nonlinearity.
Ans. 4. We likewise agree with the Examiner that Azadet’s disclosure of
using a nonlinear modeling of a physical system using LUTs with
polynomial interpolation cumulatively teaches the disputed limitations. Id. at
5 (citing Azadet ¶¶ 21, 22, Fig. 2).
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

7
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief are tantamount to an
individual attack against the distinct embodiments of Jiang, as opposed to
the combination thereof relied upon by the Examiner in the rejection of
claim 1. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references or
the embodiments thereof individually where the rejections are based on
combined teachings of the references and/or embodiments. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the cited teachings of Jiang, Azadet, and Singerl is no more than a simple
arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from
such an arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). Therefore, the ordinarily skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton,” would have been able to fit the teachings of
the cited references together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a
stable and accurate method for applying a segment-wise piecewise
polynomial approximation to a segment of the nonlinearity. Id. at 420–21.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered
combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed
modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are
satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Jiang, Azadet, and
Singerl teaches the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not
Appeal 2019-002849
Application 14/449,326

8
persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
as being unpatentable over the combination of Jiang, Azadet, and Singerl.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2–18 and 20–25, Appellant has not
presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the
same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of claim
1. As such, claims 2–18 and 20–25 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1–18 and 20–25.
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References s Affirmed Reversed
1–17, 20–23, 25 103 Jiang, Azadet, Singerl
1–17, 20–23,
25
18, 24 103 Jiang, Azadet, Singerl, Jin 18, 24
Overall
Outcome 1–18, 20–25

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED