Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201612499081 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/499,081 0710712009 Yen-Horng Chen 27765 7590 02/02/2016 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION P.O. BOX506 MERRIFIELD, VA 22116 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. MTKP0828USA 9598 EXAMINER HAIDER, SYED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YEN-HORNG CHEN and SHENG-JUI HUANG Appeal2014-001026 Application 12/499,081 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-19, which are all the pending claims in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is MediaTek Inc. (Br. 2). 2 Claim 7 has been canceled. Appeal2014-001026 Application 12/499,081 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to a communication receiver having filters connected in series (Spec. if 1). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A communication receiver, comprising: a first mixer, for mixing an input signal with a first local oscillation signal to generate a first mixed signal; a first filter group, for filtering the first mixed signal to generate a first filtered signal, wherein the first filter group comprises a first filter, a second filter, and a third filter, the first filter and the second filter are single real-pole filters, and the third filter is a complex-pole filter; a first analog-to-digital converter, for performing an analog-to-digital converting operation on the first filtered signal to generate a first digital signal; a second mixer, for mixing the input signal with a second iocai osciHation signai to generate a second mixed signai, wherein the second local oscillation signal has a quadrature phase difference relative to the first local oscillation signal; a second filter group, coupled to the second mixer, for filtering the second mixed signal to generate a second filtered signal, wherein the second filter group comprises a fourth filter, a fifth filter, and a sixth filter, the fourth filter and the fifth filter are single real-pole filters, and the sixth filter is a complex-pole filter; and a second analog-to-digital converter, coupled to the second filter group, for performing an analog-to-digital converting operation on the second filtered signal to generate a second digital signal; wherein a node connected between the first filter and the second filter is isolated from a node connected between the fourth filter and the fifth filter. 2 Appeal2014-001026 Application 12/499,081 The Examiner's Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 9-14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birkett (US 6,977,976 Bl; Dec. 20, 2005) and Darabi (US 2008/0290966 Al; Nov. 27, 2008). See Final Act. 4- 10. The Examiner further added Prodanov (US 2003/0186671 Al; Oct. 2, 2003) to reject claims 4 and 15; Allred (US 2004/0122540 Al; June 24, 2004) to reject claims 5, 6, 16, and 17; and Nagai (US 2006/0238395 Al; Oct. 26, 2006) to reject claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Final Act. 11-13. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 over Birkett and Darabi because the combination is improper? 3 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner's proffered combination is improper, because the filter configurations of Birkett and Darabi are not compatible (Br. 7). Appellants argue Birkett's filters, which have one or more poles, generate the filtered I-path and Q-path signals by cross-coupling them together, while Darabi's two-pole filter isolates the nodes of the I-path from the Q-path (id.). Appellants contend, therefore, Darabi's isolated node 3 With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants' arguments present us with the same dispositive issue as independent claim 1 (Br. 7-8). Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2---6, 8-10, and 12-19. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further. 3 Appeal2014-001026 Application 12/499,081 arrangement is only for two-pole filters, and cannot be applied to Birkett's filters when they are designed to be single real-pole filters (id.). We are not persuaded of Examiner error, because the proposed combination of Birkett and Darabi is not based on bodily incorporation of the references and, instead, takes into account the inferences a skilled person would make. Additionally, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); See also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). In this case, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Birkett and Darabi suggests arranging signal filters such that the I and Q nodes are isolated, and a skilled artisan would recognize this arrangement can be applied to filters having one or more pole (Ans. 4--5). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent ciaim 1. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6 and 8-19 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED rwk 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation