Jaiganesh Balakrishnan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 19, 2019

14323280 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2019)

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.
14/323,280 07/03/2014 Jaiganesh Balakrishnan TI-69918.2 8902
23494 7590 07/19/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
LE, LANA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/19/2019 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 JAIGANESH BALAKRISHNAN
____________________

Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,2801
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 34–44 and 46–56. Appellant has canceled claims 1–33. Amend. 7
(filed July 15, 2016); see also App. Br. 2. The Examiner has objected to
claims 45 and 57 as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but has
indicated these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
See Final Act. 18. Appellant has amended claims 45 and 57 to be in
independent form (see App. Br. Claims App’x 1–5). On April 28, 2017, for
purposes of appeal, the Examiner entered the amended claims. Adv. Act. 4.
We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies Text Instruments Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to reducing
in-band noise in a receiver by adjusting the bandwidth of a filter to better
match the bandwidth of a received signal (i.e., based on audio deviation).
Spec. ¶¶ 11, 14–17.
Claim 34 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
34. A process of reducing in-band noise in an FM receiver, the
process comprising dynamically decreasing the bandwidth of a
channel select filter to more nearly match with the varying signal
bandwidth when an audio deviation is lower due to lower
modulating sound level.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 34–38, 40, 46–50, and 52 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma (US 4,792,993; Dec. 20,
1988) and Shiono et al. (US 5,796,850; Aug. 18, 1998) (“Shiono”). Final
Act. 4–7.
2. Claims 39, 41, 51, and 53 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Shiono, and Allen et al.
(US 2011/0275339 A1; Nov. 10, 2011) (“Allen”). Final Act. 7–8.
3. Claims 42 and 54 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Shiono, and Pol (US 2001/0012770
A1; Aug. 9, 2001). Final Act. 8.
4. Claims 43 and 55 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Shiono, Allen, and Pol. Final
Act. 9.
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

3
5. Claims 44 and 56 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ma, Shiono, and Duwenhorst et al. (US
8,325,944 B1; Dec. 4, 2012) (“Duwenhorst”). Final Act. 9–10.

ANALYSIS2
Independent claim 34 recites, inter alia, “dynamically decreasing the
bandwidth of a channel select filter to more nearly match with the varying
signal bandwidth when an audio deviation is lower due to lower modulating
sound level.” (Emphasis added.) In rejecting claim 34, the Examiner finds
Ma “does not specifically disclose dynamically decreasing the bandwidth of
a channel select filter” and relies on Shiono to teach this element. Final
Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Shiono teaches controlling a filter
(i.e., turning a filter on or off) based on a detected level. Final Act. 5 (citing
Shiono, col. 6, ll. 1–32, col. 10, l. 62–col. 11, l. 6); see also Ans. 12.
Additionally, notwithstanding the Examiner’s statement that Ma does
not specifically disclose dynamically decreasing the bandwidth of a channel
select filter, the Examiner explains Ma teaches a control circuit that adjusts
the pass band of the disclosed filtering arrangement and, therefore, teaches
“adjusting or decreasing the bandwidth of the filtering means” when an
audio deviation is lower. Final Act. 2 (emphasis added). Further, the
Examiner states “from common knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and as taught by Ma, controlling the filter bandwidth

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
March 22, 2017 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed October 12, 2017
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 17, 2017 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed August 26, 2016 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

4
means adjusting the bandwidth by making it smaller or larger based on the
desired signal bandwidth that match with the varying signal bandwidth.”
Ans. 12
Appellant asserts “Ma describes only dynamically increasing the
bandwidth, but does not describe reducing the bandwidth of the filters.”
App. Br. 11 (citing Ma, col. 6, ll. 18–26, col. 7, ll. 8–16); see also Reply
Br. 2–5. Moreover, Appellant argues Shiono is not relevant to the claimed
invention and, more importantly, only describes turning on/off a filter to
control voltage gain based on an indication of whether a noise only signal or
a voice signal is received. App. Br. 13 (citing Shiono, col. 10, l. 62–col. 11,
l. 6. Appellant argues that controlling voltage gain, as described by Shiono,
results in reducing the noise level when only noise is present and fails to
teach dynamically decreasing the bandwidth of a filter due to a lower
modulating sound level. App. Br. 13. Also, Appellant asserts the
Examiner’s statement that it would have been “common knowledge” to one
of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the bandwidth of a filter by making it
“smaller or larger based on the desired signal bandwidth that match[es] the
varying signal bandwidth” is unsupported. Reply Br. 5 (emphases omitted).
Ma generally relates to a receiver for receiving broadcast signals over
a plurality of channels with varying bandwidths. Ma, Abstract. Ma
describes, inter alia, a filter arrangement comprising a plurality of filters—
each filter being tuned to a different bandwidth. Ma, col. 4, ll. 66–68, Fig. 2.
Ma describes a DC signal that corresponds to the deviation of the bandwidth
of the received signal. Ma, col. 5, ll. 15–20. This DC signal is used to select
(via switches) one of the plurality of filters to be used. Ma, col. 5, ll. 24–29.
“Thus, the bandwidth detection control system 28 serves as a means of
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

5
automatically varying the receiver bandwidth on the basis of the modulation
bandwidth of the selected signal.” Ma, col. 5, ll. 29–32.
However, as Appellant points out, Ma describes setting the bandwidth
to the minimum of the available range every time a new station is selected
and then increasing the bandwidth (i.e., by selecting a filter with a greater
bandwidth) based on the bandwidth of the received signal. See Ma, col. 6,
ll. 18–22, ll. 53–54, col. 7, ll. 8–16. Thus, the bandwidth of the filtering
arrangement is decreased upon a new station being selected, not when an
audio deviation is lower due to lower modulating sound level, as claimed.
Moreover, the Examiner has not provided persuasive evidence or reasoning
that the bandwidth detection control system increases or decreases the
receiver bandwidth on the basis of the modulation bandwidth of the selected
signal.
Shiono is generally directed to a noise reduction circuit for reducing
noise in a voice signal. Shiono, col. 1, ll. 8–12. In particular, Shiono
describes a circuit comprising an inverted signal and a mixer for adding the
inverted signal to an input signal for cancelling the noise component. See
Shiono, col. 5, ll. 7–14, Figs. 1, 5. In a disclosed embodiment (relied on by
the Examiner), Shiono describes enabling or disabling a low-pass filter input
to the inverting amplifier. See Shiono, col. 10, l. 36–col. 11, l. 6, Fig. 5; see
also Final Act. 5. Shiono describes the additional circuitry as an “auto level
controller.” Shiono, col. 10, ll. 58–59.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Shiono teaches or
suggests dynamically decreasing the bandwidth of a filter to more nearly
match the varying signal bandwidth of an input signal when the deviation
decreases due to a lower modulating sound level. Shiono’s filter control
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

6
does not attempt to match the bandwidth of the input signal, but instead
either turns the low-pass filter on or off.
Additionally, although we are mindful that the obviousness inquiry
“not only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and
common sense,” particularly regarding the motivation to combine the cited
references, “assumptions about common sense cannot substitute for evidence
thereof.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383,
1385 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence to support a finding that it would have been within the “common
knowledge” of an ordinarily skilled artisan to adjust (i.e., increase and
decrease) the bandwidth of the filters taught by Ma to match the bandwidth
of the input signal. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
(declining to resort to impermissible speculation or assumptions to cure
deficiencies in the factual bases of the rejection).
Because we find it dispositive that the combined teachings of Ma and
Shiono, as identified by the Examiner, do not teach or dynamically
decreasing the bandwidth of a channel select filter to more nearly match
with the varying signal bandwidth when an audio deviation is lower due to
lower modulating sound level, as recited in independent claim 34 (and as
commensurately recited in independent claim 46), we do not address other
issues raised by Appellant’s arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at
liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).
For the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of independent claims 34 and
Appeal 2018-000373
Application 14/323,280

7
46. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 35–44 and 47–56, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 34–44 and 46–56
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED