Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2022

2020006175 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2022)

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. 15/674,733 08/11/2017 Fenghao Mu 4015-10003 / P26552-US2 3119 24112 7590 02/03/2022 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER SHERIF, FATUMA G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2022 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FENGHAO MU and FREDRIK TILLMAN Appeal 2020-006175 Application 15/674,733 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BETH Z. SHAW, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006175 Application 15/674,733 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to re-configurable passive mixers for wireless receivers. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A passive mixer for a wireless receiver, comprising: a plurality of passive mixer cores coupled in parallel with each mixer core configured to receive a same set of radio frequency input signals and a separately driven set of local oscillator input signals, each mixer core configured to be separately enabled or disabled so that the passive mixer can be selectively configured during operation to convert the same set of radio frequency input signals to a set of downconverted output signals that satisfy a certain performance requirement or performance parameter of the passive mixer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Zhou US 2003/0162515 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Sung US 2005/0140402 A1 June 30, 2005 Hayashi US 2006/0205370 A1 Sept. 14, 2006 Aniruddhan US 2009/0075689 A1 Mar. 19, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under §103(a) as obvious over Zhou and Aniruddhan. Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Zhou, Aniruddhan, and Hayashi. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Zhou, Aniruddhan, and Sung. Appeal 2020-006175 Application 15/674,733 3 OPINION Appellant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed “plurality of passive mixer cores coupled in parallel with each mixer core configured to receive a same set of radio frequency input signals and a separately driven set of local oscillator input signals, each mixer core configured to be separately enabled or disabled,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant argues that in Zhou, the same local oscillator signals (LO) and complimentary local oscillator signals (LOC) are used to “enable” all pairs of complementary transistors. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the claims require a separate LO signal that drives each mixer core, which is not taught or suggested by Zhou. Reply Br. 4. On this record, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We are unable to discern how, on this record, the cited portions of Zhou teach or suggest that each mixer core is configured to receive a separately driven set of local oscillator input signals. See Zhou, Fig. 5 (element 512), ¶ 48 (referring to “the LO signal”). We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-20. We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 8, 11, and 14, because the Examiner does not assert the other cited references cure this deficiency. Appeal 2020-006175 Application 15/674,733 4 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15- 20 103 Zhou, Aniruddhan 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15- 20 8, 14 103 Zhou, Aniruddhan, Hayashi 8, 14 11 103 Zhou, Aniruddhan, Sung 11 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED