Ex Parte DAUPHINEE

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2019

14153799 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/153,799 01/13/2014 Leonard DAUPHINEE
49579 7590 04/01/2019
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
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.
1875.4740004 1148
EXAMINER
NGUYEN,LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
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):
e-office@stemekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONARD DAUPHINEE 1
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2---6 and 9-18. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AV AGO
TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Reply. Br. 2.
2 Dependent claims 21 and 23 were withdrawn from consideration by the
Examiner in the Final Action mailed March 28, 2016. Final Act. 2.
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "improved methods and systems
for tuning. More particularly, the disclosure relates to direct sampling
tuners. The disclosure can be implemented in, for example, cable modems,
satellite set top boxes, cable set top boxes, and the like. The present
disclosure reduces or eliminates mixers, SAW filters, and other analog
components." Spec. ,r 5.
Independent claim 2, reproduced below with the argued limitation in
italics, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
2. A tuner, comprising:
an amplifier arranged at a front end of the tuner and
configured to amplify a radio frequency (RF) signal;
a converter, having an input directly coupled to an output
of the amplifier, and configured to digitize an entire band of the
amplified RF signal, wherein the converter operates at a
sampling rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in
the entire band of the amplified RF signal; and
a digital signal processor coupled to the converter and
configured to demodulate multiple channels of the entire band
of the amplified RF signal.
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES 3
The Examiner rejected claims 2---6, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kaminski (US 6,678,512 Bl, issued
Jan. 13, 2004) and Holt (US 6,504,515 Bl, issued Jan. 7, 2003).
3 The Examiner entered a nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims
2---6, 9, 10, and 12-18 in view of claims 1-24 of US 7,522,901. Final Act. 8.
The Examiner also entered a nonstatutory double patenting rejection of
claim 11 in view of claims 1-24 of US 7,522,901, Holt, and Jackson. Final
Act. 9. Appellant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on August 29, 2016, which
was accepted on September 9, 2016. See Reply Br. 12-13. Thus, this
2
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
The Examiner rejected claims 9-12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kaminski, Holt, and Jackson (US 5,592,165,
issued Jan. 7, 1997).
The Examiner rejected claim14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Kaminski, Holt, and Astrachan (US 7,072,632 B2, July 4,
2006).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kaminski teaches all the recited claim limitations
except it "does not explicitly teach that the converter operates at a sampling
rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in the entire band of the
amplified RF signal." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner then finds Holt
teaches an "analog-digital-converter samples at a rate to meet Nyquist
criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band." Id. Thus,
the Examiner finds, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the
time of Appellant's invention to include the sampling rate of Holt into the
tuner of Kaminski to meet the "Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency
signal of interest in the band." Id. The Examiner asserts:
There is nowhere in the patent [Kaminski] that teaches the
undersampling of the RF signal. In fact, Kaminski's AID
sampling rate is twice the signal bandwidth (Nyquist bandwidth).
Otherwise, aliasing occurs (Col. 4: 50-60).
Second, the claim recites "the entire band of the amplified RF
signal". There is nowhere in the claim that recites the carrier
signal.
rejection, although not specifically withdrawn by the Examiner, is not before
us.
3
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
Third, Kaminski teaches that the 400 MHz sampling rate is just
an example of the choice of the Nyquist sampling rate which is
twice of the selected highest frequency 200 MHz.
Final Act. 12. We agree.
Appellant contends "Kaminski samples at twice the information signal
bandwidth and not the highest frequency in the entire band (Kaminski, 4: 17-
20, '[b ]ecause the signal bandwidth is sampled at least twice the highest
frequency component of the information signal, the information signal can
be reproduced in the digital domain. '(Emphasis Added))." App. Br. 6-7.
Appellant further contends "Kaminski is concerned with sampling at [the]
twice the information signal bandwidth 'regardless of the carrier frequency'
of the modulated analog signal" (i.e., undersampled) (see Kaminski col 4, 11.
8-13); whereas, Appellant's claim 2 recites that "the converter operates at a
sampling rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in the entire
band of the amplified RF signal" (i.e., oversampled). Reply Br. 4 (emphases
added). Appellant then asserts the "amplified RF signal [ of the invention] is
akin to the carrier frequency of the modulated analog signal" of Kaminski.
Id. Therefore, Appellant submits Kaminski' s sampling rate cannot be
changed according to Holt's teachings reciting "at a sample rate to meet
Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br.
11-12; Holt col. 4, 11. 53-54. We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
Initially, we note Exhibit 1 (App. Br. Evidence App'x), cited by the
Examiner, teaches "At this point we can clearly restate the Nyquist criteria:
A signal must be sampled at a rate equal to or greater than twice its
bandwidth in order to preserve all the signal information." Mixed-Signal
and DSP Design Techniques, A Volume in the Analog Devices Series, 21
4
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
(Walt Kester ed., 2003) ("Kester"). Particularly, we agree with the
Examiner, Kaminski teaches "[i]f the waveform is sampled at a rate less than
twice its signal bandwidth (the Nyquist bandwidth) an undesirable
overlapping between the adjacent periodic spectrums can occur ... known
as aliasing. Accordingly, the sampling rate is chosen to avoid loss of
information due to aliasing." Ans. 9 (quoting Kaminski col. 4, 11. 54--57)
( emphasis and underlining removed). This contradicts Appellant's
contention that Kaminski intentionally undersamples these cellular and PCS
band frequencies for the aliasing effect. See id. Further, Kaminski teaches
there are many different Nyquist zone bandwidths, and specifically,
Kaminski's teaching of a Nyquist zone bandwidth at 200M Hz and a
Nyquist sampling rate at 400 MHz is an example of oversampling at a
selected frequency, contrary to Appellant's assertions otherwise. Id. at 9, 11
(citing Kaminski col. 6, 11. 12-15).
We also agree with the Examiner that the sampling rate of Holt can be
applied "to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest"
in Kaminski. Ans. 11-12. Holt states, in column 4, lines 50-54 relied on by
the Examiner, that "output signals of the respective downconverters within
the block converter 61 are digitized by respective analog-to-digital
converters (ADCs) 71 and 73 (at a sample rate to meet Nyquist criteria for
the highest frequency signal)" (emphasis added). Ans. 12; Final Act. 14.
We also agree Kaminski teaches "the signal bandwidth is sampled at [at]
least twice the highest frequency component of the information signal (Col.
4: 15-20)," thus it would be an obvious extension to apply the teachings of
Holt ("a sample rate to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal
of interest in the band" (col 4, 11. 52-54)) to Kaminski to obtain the disputed
5
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
claim limitation, particularly in light of Exhibit 1. Ans. 11-12. Thus,
applying a sampling rate as taught by Holt would be consistent with
selecting "a Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in
the band." Id.
Appellant's further argument that applying the teachings of Holt to
Kaminski would result in Kaminski not operating, are unpersuasive. App.
Br. 12. As the Examiner finds, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily
skilled artisan at the time of Appellant's invention to combine the flexibility
of selecting different Nyquist frequencies as taught by Kaminski, with the
"sampling rate of Holt to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency
signal of interest in the band." Ans. 12.
With respect to Appellant's additional contention that Kaminski does
not teach a converter having an input directly coupled to an output of the
amplifier, we do not agree. App. Br. 14--15. The Examiner refers to
Kaminski's Figure 1 and column 3, line 66-column 4, line 2, which recites
an embodiment where "if a receiver 10 has a single branch 16, the
combining arrangement 22 is simply a connection from the antenna 12
through the filter 20 (if required) to the AID converter 24." Ans. 14
( quoting, with added underlining and bold for emphasis, Kaminski, col. 3, 1.
66-col. 4, 1. 2). Thus, if the filter 20 is not required, Kaminski at least
suggests the combining arrangement includes a direct connection from the
low noise amplifier LNA to the AID converter as shown in Kaminski's
Figure 1 and recited in Appellant's claim 2. Ans. 14.
Appellant responds, even if the Examiner is correct, Kaminski would
simply be a connection from antenna 12 to AID converter 24, and not
between the LNA and the AID converter as claimed. App. Br. 14--15; Reply
6
Appeal2017-007106
Application 14/153,799
Br. 11-12. We do not agree. Appellant appears to ignore the LNA
connected between the antenna 12 and the AID converter. We agree with
the Examiner, Kaminski's teaching does not exclude the LNA from being
directly connected to the AID converter, as Appellant asserts. Ans. 14--15.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 2 and 17 and dependent claims 3---6, 9-16, and 18, for
which no substantive arguments were provided. App. Br. 15-17.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-6 and 9-18 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
7