Ex Parte Breems

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14558217 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/558,217 12/02/2014
65913 7590 04/01/2019
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lucien Johannes Breems
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81527623US03 7863
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCIEN JOHANNES BREEMS
Appeal2018-003657
Application 14/558,217
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 6-17 of Application
14/558,217 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Non-Final Act. 3-11 (Sept.
8, 2017). Appellant 1 seeks reversal of the rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, NXP B.V. See Application Data Sheet
(Dec.2.2014); 37 CPR§ 41.31 (a)(l). The Appeal Brief does not identify
the real party in interest. See generally Appeal Br.
Appeal2018-003657
Application 14/558,217
BACKGROUND
The Application relates to a sigma-delta modulator circuit. Spec.,
Abstract. The described sigma-delta modulator circuit includes a feed-
forward path adapted to provide a signal from a node preceding the
integrator or resonator section to a filter and then to the output of the
integrator or resonator section. Id. at 2:23-26. The Application teaches that
the inclusion of a filter in a feed-forward path of a sigma-delta modulator
may reduce peaking behaviour of the signal transfer function ("STF"). Id. at
2:28-29.
Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the Application's claims and are
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief with
certain language bolded for emphasis:
1. A sigma-delta modulator circuit comprising:
a loopfilter having at least one integrator or resonator
section, and an output summation node after the integrator or
resonator section;
a feed-forward path configured to provide a feed-
forward signal to the output summation node via a filter
configured to implement a specific phase shift and
compensate peaking behavior in a signal transfer function of the
sigma-delta modulator, the feed-forward signal being taken
from a circuit node before the at least one integrator or
resonator section; and
an ADC; wherein the output summation node is directly
coupled to the ADC.
8. The circuit of claim 1, further comprising:
a second feed-forward path configured to provide a
second feed-forward signal via a second filter, the second feed-
forward path being different from the feed-forward path.
Appeal Br. (Oct. 31, 2017), 15-16 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2018-003657
Application 14/558,217
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. 2 in view ofYamada. 3
Non-Final Act. 3---6.
2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ho et al. 4 in view of Yamada. Id.
at 7-9.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yamamoto in view of Yamada and further in view of Nanda et al. 5
Id. at 10.
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yamamoto in view of Yamada and further in view of Muraguchi et al. 6
Id. at 10-11.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected independent claims 1 and 11 as
well as several dependent claims as obvious over Yamamoto in view of
Yamada. Non-Final Act. 3---6. Claims 1 and 11 each require "a filter
configured to implement a specific phase shift." In support of this rejection,
the Examiner found that Yamada teaches a low pass filter configured to
2 US 7,583,215 B2, issued Sept. 1, 2009 ("Yamamoto").
3 US 6,721,427 Bl, issued Apr. 13, 2004 ("Yamada").
4 US 2014/0159930 Al, published June 12, 2014 ("Ho").
5 US 7,755,525 B2, issued July 13, 2010 ("Nanda").
6 US 2010/0040175 Al, issued Feb. 18, 2010 ("Muraguchi").
3
Appeal2018-003657
Application 14/558,217
implement a specific phase shift. Id. at 4. Yamada teaches a low-pass filter
with phase shift characteristics as shown in the graph reproduced below.
Yamada, Fig. 2. Figure 2 of Yamada is a graph of the frequency and phase
characteristics of a conventional low pass filter. Id. at 2:37-38. Yamada
teaches that "the phase shift gradually increases within the range of 200 Hz
to 9 kHz, and fluctuates dramatically at a frequency of 9 kHz and higher."
Id. at 1 :56-58.
Appellant argues that "[a]ny phase shift added by a LPF would vary
widely with frequency, so Yamada's LPF could not implement a specific
phase shift." Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). That is, Appellant argues
that Yamada teaches a filter that implements a phase shift, but not a
"specific" phase shift.
The Specification does not define the term "specific phase shift" nor
use the term "specific" in any place. Certain of the original claims included
a "phase shift" limitation but not a "specific phase shift" limitation. See
Original Claims (filed Dec. 2, 2014). In remarks accompanying the
amendment that added the "specific phase shift" limitation, Appellant stated
4
Appeal2018-003657
Application 14/558,217
that "[l]ines 22-25 of page 8 of the specification, for example, provide
support for this subject matter." See Amendment Under 37 C.F .R. § 1.114
(June 29, 2016) 6. 7 This portion of the Specification provides as follows:
The feed-forward path includes a filter 150. In this
example, the filter 150 is a simple phase shift filter that
introduces a phase shift ~