THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2021

2020001766 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2021)

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.
13/904,711 05/29/2013 Cornel Prunean 70186.392US01 9944
65678 7590 02/08/2021
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (70186)
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
MULL, FRED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2021 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CORNEL PRUNEAN

Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JAMES A. WORTH, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5–12, and 15–24. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

2
BACKGROUND
The Specification states that the “disclosure relates to atmospheric
time delays. In particular, it relates to determining ionospheric time delays
for global positioning system (GPS) receivers using multiple carrier
frequencies.” Spec. ¶ 1
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed claims and recites:
1. A method for determining atmospheric time delays, the
method comprising:
receiving, with at least one antenna, at least two signals,
wherein the at least two signals each have a different carrier
frequency;
filtering each of the at least two signals with a single
respective noise band limiting filter for each of the at least two
signals to produce at least two filtered signals;
amplifying each of the at least two filtered signals with a
single respective amplifier for each of the at least two filtered
signals to produce at least two amplified signals;
inputting each of the at least two amplified signals directly
from each of the respective amplifiers into a respective analog to
digital converter (ADC) for each of the at least two amplified
signals;
digitizing each of the at least two amplified signals with
the respective ADC for each of the at least two amplified signals
to produce at least two digital signals;
correlating each of the at least two digital signals with a
code using a separate respective correlator for each of the at least
two digital signals to determine a time group delay differential
between the at least two signals;
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

3
calculating, with at least one processor, a time group delay
coefficient of the at least two signals by using the time group
delay differential; and
wherein the method, comprising the receiving, the
amplifying, the digitizing, and the correlating, is performed
without using downconverters.
Appeal Br. 26.
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5–10, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ganguly2 in view of Klobuchar3 and Akos.4
2. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 15–20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ganguly in view of Akos.
3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5–10, 21, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ganguly in view of Klobuchar, Akos, and
Breems.5
4. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 15–20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ganguly in view of Akos and Breems.
5. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5–10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lennen6 in view of Klobuchar and Akos.

2 Ganguly et al., US 2007/0008216 A1, pub. Jan. 11, 2007.
3 J. A. Klobuchar, Ionospheric Effects on GPS (1996).
4 Dennis M. Akos et al., Design and Implementation of a Direct Digitization
GPS Receiver Front End, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY
AND TECHNIQUE, Vol. 44, No. 12, p. 2334 (Dec. 1996).
5 Lucien Breems & Johan H. Huijsing, Continuous-Time Sigma-Delta
Modulation For A/D Conversion in Radio Receivers, Kluwer Academic
Publishers (2001)
6 Lennen, US 5,663,733, iss. Sept. 2, 1997.
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

4
6. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 15–20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Lennen in view of Akos.
DISCUSSION
Ganguly in view of Klobuchar and Akos
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ganguly discloses a
method as claimed except that Ganguly does not disclose, inter alia,
amplifying and filtering as claimed without the use of downconverters.
Final Act. 2–4. However, the Examiner finds that Akos teaches replacing
downconverters with direct digitization without downconverters and
determines that it would have been obvious to replace the downconverters in
Ganguly with direct digitization without downconverters as taught by Akos
“in order to improve front end performance, as motivated by Akos.” Id. at
4–5. With respect to this finding and determination, Appellant asserts that
Ganguly teaches a system and method in which amplifiers are not used, and
in contrast, Akos teaches direct digitization replacing downconverters where
both direct digitation and downconverters rely on the use of amplifiers. See
Appeal Br. 6–11. Based on this difference, Appellant argues that it would
not have been obvious to replace Ganguly’s downconverters without
amplifiers with the direct digitization approach taught by Akos, which
requires the use of amplifiers. See id. at 7. The Examiner responds that
Akos does not necessarily disclose the use of amplifiers in the traditional
front end and only requires that the direct digitization method would include
amplifiers. Ans. 4–5. Thus, the Examiner finds that replacing the
downconverters of Ganguly with the direct digitization method without
downconverters in Akos would include the use of amplifiers as taught by
Akos. Id. at 5.
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

5
We determine that the Examiner erred because the Examiner has not
shown adequately that the system and method of Ganguly would have
benefited from the substitution proposed, and thus, the Examiner’s reasoning
is not adequately supported on the record.
The key to supporting a prima facie conclusion of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is the clear articulation of the reason why the claimed
invention would have been obvious. The Court in KSR International Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) indicated that the analysis supporting
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be made explicit. The Federal
Circuit has stated that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be
sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Akos teaches replacing a “traditional front end design” with a direct
digitization approach that “greatly reduces the hardware requirements of the
traditional front end design.” Akos, Abstr. Akos discloses that a traditional
front end “typically includes amplifiers, filters, local oscillators (LO), and
mixers.” Akos, 2334. Akos also discloses a figure depicting a “Traditional
receiver front end design” including these features. Akos, Fig. 1. Akos does
not otherwise explain what may or may not be included in a traditional
design. The rejection relies on replacing Ganguly’s downconverters, which
do not include amplifiers, with Akos’s implementation of direct digitization
without downconverters and including amplifiers. Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant argues that it is not clear that Akos teaches an approach that
is compatible with the architecture used by Ganguly and that the Examiner
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

6
merely speculates that Ganguly’s design may be substituted out for the
design implemented by Akos. See Reply Br. 3–4. We agree to the extent
that we find that the Examiner has not adequately established that Ganguly’s
design is compatible with the approach taught by Akos such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the benefits disclosed by
Akos would have resulted in the proposed combination. In other words, we
agree with Appellant that Akos teaches a design without the use of
amplifiers as a traditional front end; Ganguly does not teach the use of such
amplifiers; and thus, the Examiner has not shown that Ganguly teaches a
“traditional front end design” as contemplated by Akos such that the
proposed modification would have resulted in the benefits taught by Akos.
Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
dependent claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
or the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5–10, 21, 23, and 24.
Ganguly in view of Akos
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner relies on substantially the
same findings and determination in proposing to combine Ganguly and Akos
as those relied upon in rejection claim 1, as discussed above. Accordingly,
for the reasons discussed above, we also do not sustain the rejection of claim
11 or dependent claims 12, 15–20, and 22.
Rejections including Breems
The Examiner alternatively relies on Breems in addition to the
findings above in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11. See Final Act. 5,
9–10. However, the Examiner does provide further analysis or evidence in
these alternative rejections that would cure the deficiency in the rejections
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

7
discussed above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the rejections further
in view of Breems.
Lennen in view of Klobuchar and Akos
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Lennen discloses a
method as claimed except that:
Lennen fails to disclose inputting each of the at least two
amplified signals directly from each of the respective amplifiers
into a respective ADC for each of the at least two amplified
signals; correlating each of the at least two digital signals with a
code using a respective correlator for each of the at least two
digital signals to determine a time group delay differential (time
difference of arrival) between the at least two signals, and
calculating the time group delay coefficient of the at least two
signals by using the time group delay differential, and
implementation of the system and method without using
downconverters.
Final Act. 12–13. With respect to the claimed use of amplifiers, the
Examiner finds that Lennen teaches amplifying at least two signals with a
single respective amplifier for each of the at least two signals. Id. at 12
(citing Lennen, Figs. 1, 5; col. 12, ll. 23–25). The Examiner acknowledges
that Lennen teaches using a downconverter (Lennen’s Figure 5), and the
Examiner relies on Akos as teaching replacing downconverters with direct
digitization without downconverters. Id. at 15. The Examiner states that
“[i]n the combination, without a downconverter, the amplifier signals will
directly feed into the ADC (14 to 30, Fig. 1), where the amplifiers are the
last portion of 14 (134, 136, Fig. 5).” Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the proposed combination is missing
a second amplifier that would be required by the claimed method. Appeal
Br. 24. We are persuaded of error to the extent that we agree that it is not
clear how the proposed combination would result in amplifying “at least two
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

8
filtered signals with a single respective amplifier for each of the at least two
filtered signals” as required by claim 1. In the rejection, the Examiner finds
that Lennen teaches amplifying at least two signals with a single respective
amplifier for each of the two signals, and the Examiner relies on both the
amplifier 14 in Lennen’s Figure 1 and amplifiers 134 and 136 in Lennen’s
Figure 5. Final Act. 12. The Examiner appears to indicate that the amplifier
at 14 encompasses the two amplifiers 134 and 136 in the downconverter. Id.
at 15. However, we agree with Appellant that Lennen’s Figure 2 shows the
components of the amplifier of Figure 1 and Figure 5 separately shows the
components of the downconverter. See Appeal Br. 24; see also Lennen, col.
12, ll. 10–29. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s finding, it appears that
Lennen discloses the use of at least two amplifiers acting on the signals, i.e.,
the amplifier at 14 and the amplifiers at 134 and 136.
Further, in response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner reiterates
that the combination would rely on amplifiers 134 and 136 of the
downconverter as the separate amplifiers. Ans. 10. However, this
explanation fails to consider the separate amplifier in Lennen that is included
at element 14. Further, the combination relies on replacing Lennen’s
downconverter with a direct digitation without downconverters as taught by
Akos. Final Act. 15. The Examiner appears to indicate that the amplifiers
of Lennen’s downconverter would be retained in the combination, but it is
not clear how or why the amplifiers in Lennen’s downconverter would be
retained, when the downconverters are replaced in light of Akos’s teachings.
In short, because the Examiner has not clearly explained what
amplifiers are used in the proposed combination, the Examiner has not set
forth adequately how or why the proposed combination with Lennen would
Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

9
result in a method in which at least two filtered signals are amplified with a
single respective amplifier for each of the at least two filtered signals, as
required by claim 1. Thus, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 1. We are also persuaded of error in the rejection of dependent claims
2, 5–10, and 21 for the same reasons. Accordingly, we do not sustain this
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–10 and 21.
Lennen in view of Akos
Independent claim 11 is a system claim that requires, inter alia, “a
single respective amplifier for each of . . . at least two filtered signals to
amplify each of the at least two filtered signals” and requires that the system
“is without downconverters.” Appeal Br. 28. With respect to these claim
requirements, the Examiner relies on substantially the same findings with
respect to Lennen and Akos as those discussed with respect to the rejection
of claim 1 over Lennen, Klobuchar, and Akos. Final Act. 17–21. We are
persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 11 for the same reasons
discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1 over Lennen, Klobuchar,
and Akos. Specifically, the Examiner has not set forth adequately how the
combination would result in a system with “a single respective amplifier for
each of the at least two filtered signals” as required by claim 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain this rejection of claim 11 or dependent
claims 12, 15–20, and 22.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5–12, and 15–24.

Appeal 2020-001766
Application 13/904,711

10
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–10,
21, 23, 24
103 Ganguly,
Klobuchar, Akos
1, 2, 5–10,
21, 23, 24
11, 12, 15–
20, 22
103 Ganguly, Akos 11, 12, 15–
20, 22
1, 2, 5–10,
21, 23, 24
103 Ganguly,
Klobuchar, Akos,
Breems
1, 2, 5–10,
21, 23, 24
11, 12, 15–
20, 22
103 Ganguly, Akos,
Breems
11, 12, 15–
20, 22
1, 2, 5–10,
21
103 Lennen,
Klobuchar, Akos
1, 2, 5–10,
21
11, 12, 15–
20, 22
103 Lennen, Akos 11, 12, 15–
20, 22
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–12,
15–24

REVERSED