ANALOG DEVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15478926 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
15/478,926 04/04/2017 David J. McLaurin ADINC.337A 7405
110833 7590 11/03/2020
KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
(ADIRE/ADINC/ADHIT)
2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J. MCLAURIN, CHRISTOPHER MAYER,
HATICE DICLE OZIS UNSAL, and ZHENG GAO
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, 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 1–9 and 11–20. 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 Analog Devices,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “calibration of radio frequency
transmitters.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A radio frequency (RF) communication system
with common mode local oscillator leakage compensation, the
RF communication system comprising:
an RF transmitter comprising a local oscillator (LO), the
RF transmitter configured to generate a differential transmitter
signal including a non-inverted signal and an inverted signal;
an LO leakage observation circuit configured to
determine an amount of common mode LO leakage from the
LO in the differential transmitter signal based at least in part on
a sum of the non-inverted signal the inverted signal; and
a common mode LO generation circuit configured to
compensate the RF transmitter for the amount of common mode
LO leakage determined by the LO leakage observation circuit.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Vagher US 5,613,233 Mar. 18, 1997
Sahlman US 2002/0048326 A1 Apr. 25, 2002
Miller US 2002/0186106 A1 Dec. 12, 2002
Redman-White US 2004/0017862 A1 Jan. 29, 2004
Bitton US 2016/0173317 A1 June 16, 2016

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bitton, Redman-White, and Vagher. Final Act. 3–7.
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
3
Claims 2, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bitton, Redman-White, Vagher, and Sahlman. Final Act. 8–10.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bitton,
Redman-White, Vagher, and Miller. Final Act. 10–12.
Claims 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bitton, Redman-White, Vagher, Miller, and Sahlman. Final Act. 12–14.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3–9, 11, 12, and 15 over Bitton,
Redman-White, and Vagher
The Examiner finds Bitton, Redman-White, and Vagher teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–5; see also Ans. 4–11.
The Examiner finds Bitton’s transceiver (Bitton, Fig. 6) teaches most
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner further finds “Bitton
fails to explicitly teach wherein the differential transmitte[r] signal includes
[a] non-inverted signal and [an] inverted signal and the oscillator leakage is
common mode [LO] leakage.” Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds Redman-White’s receiver (Redman-White, Fig.
2) cures some of the shortcomings of Bitton. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
further finds “[t]he combination [of Bitton and Redman-White] fail[s] to
teach wherein the common [mode LO] leakage [] in the differential
[transmitter] signal is based at least in part on a sum of the non-inverted
signal and the inverted signal.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner provides a reason
to combine the teachings of Redman-White with Bitton. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds Vagher (Vagher, Figs. 3–6) “discloses an
apparatus with [a] cancelling feedback signal wherein a common mode
correction signal is based on the sum of the inverted and non-inverted
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
4
[signals of the] differential signal.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner provides a
reason to combine the teachings of Vagher with Bitton and Redman-White.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
“Bitton fails to teach nearly the entirety of Claim 1. Bitton’s circuit
does not generate differential signals, Bitton does not use differential signals
to detect common mode LO leakage, and Bitton does not correct for
common mode LO leakage.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Bitton, Fig. 6. “[T]o
rely on Bitton, the Final Office Action would need to bridge many
differences between [] Bitton’s teachings and the claims.” Appeal Br. 11.
Redman-White reduces differential mode leakage, and transforms
residual differential mode leakage to common mode leakage. See Appeal Br.
12–15; see also Redman-White, Fig. 2. The Examiner does not explain how
to modify Bitton’s transceiver in light of Redman-White’s differential
receiver. See Appeal Br. 15–17. “[T]he suggested motivation for applying
the teachings of Redman-White’s receiver to Bitton’s transceiver are either
unsupported or inapplicable.” Appeal Br. 18.
Because Bitton lacks the non-inverted signal and the
inverted signal inputs required as inputs for Vagher’s circuits, the
proposed combination will naturally fail to “determine an
amount of common mode LO leakage from the LO in the
differential transmitter signal based at least in part on a sum of
the non-inverted signal [and] the inverted signal” and fail to
“compensate the RF transmitter for the amount of common mode
LO leakage determined by the LO leakage observation circuit”
as recited in the context of Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 21.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 based on
Bitton, Redman-White, and Vagher. Appellant’s claim 1 recites a
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
5
“differential transmitter signal,” “common mode LO leakage,” and
compensating for the “common mode LO leakage.” Appellant’s Fig. 1
depicts an embodiment, including signal lines TX+ and TX-.
Turning to Bitton’s transceiver in Fig. 6, Bitton does not depict such a
differential transmitter arrangement. See Bitton, Fig. 6. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that “Bitton fails to explicitly teach wherein the differential
transmitte[r] signal includes [a] non-inverted signal and [an] inverted signal
and the oscillator leakage is common mode [LO] leakage.” Final Act. 4.
Turning to Redman-White’s receiver in Fig. 2, Redman-White’s
receiver reduces differential mode leakage, and transforms residual
differential mode leakage to common mode leakage. See Redman-White,
Fig. 2.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments made with respect to Redman-
White, and do not readily see how or why a skilled artisan would have
modified Bitton in view of Redman-White’s teachings because Bitton does
not depict a differential transmitter arrangement. See Bitton, Fig. 6.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reasoning: “to detect and correct
common mode local oscillator leakage distortion, in order to minimize noise
sensitivity and to further minimize the propagation of the local oscillator
signal error signal.” Final Act. 4 (citing Redman-White ¶¶ 5, 8). First, the
Examiner already acknowledged that Bitton does not teach a differential
transmitter arrangement (Final Act. 4). Thus, Bitton does not have common
mode leakage “to detect and correct.” Further, the cited portions of Redman-
White do not provide sufficient further clarification because they are
addressing differential mode leakage in Redman-White. See Redman-White
¶¶ 5 (“differential circuits are used throughout, thereby cancelling the
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
6
common-mode leakage or noise”), 8 (describing transforming residual
differential leakage into common mode leakage).
Finally, because we do not agree with the Examiner’s reasoning to
modify Bitton in view of Redman-White, we do not reach the applicability
of Vagher.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–9, 11, and
12, which depend from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
15 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 13, 14, and 16 over Bitton, Redman-
White, Vagher, and Sahlman
Claims 2, 13, 14, and 16 variously depend from claims 1 and 15.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 13,
14, and 16.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 17 over Bitton, Redman-White, Vagher,
and Miller
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 1. Appellant argues
Miller does not cure the deficiencies of Bitton, Redman-White, and Vagher.
See Appeal Br. 23. We agree.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 18–20 over Bitton, Redman-White,
Vagher, Miller, and Sahlman
Claims 18–20 depend from claim 17.
Appeal 2019-004506
Application 15/478,926
7
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–
20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9 and 11–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11,
12, 15
103 Bitton, Redman-
White, Vagher
1, 3–9, 11,
12, 15
2, 13, 14,
16
103 Bitton, Redman-
White, Vagher,
Sahlman
2, 13, 14,
16
17 103 Bitton, Redman-
White, Vagher,
Miller
17
18–20 103 Bitton, Redman-
White, Vagher,
Miller, Sahlman
18–20
Overall
Outcome
1–9, 11–20

REVERSED