Ex Parte Dyba et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2016

11343781 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111343,781 0113112006
23125 7590 10/26/2016
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC
LAW DEPARTMENT
6501 William Cannon Drive West TX30/0E62
AUSTIN, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roman A. Dyba
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.
SC14523TS 7357
EXAMINER
GAY,SONIAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2651
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2016 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):
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 ROMAN A. DYBA, PERRY P. HE,
and LUCIO F.C. PESSOA1
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-24. Claims 2 and 11 are cancelled. We
have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Freescale
Semiconductor Inc. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
Jan. 21, 2006 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
June 10, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Dec. 10, 2014;
(4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 5, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 2, 2015.
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
BACKGROUND
Appellants' application relates to a system and method using a multi-
rate filter to detect reflections in communication channels. Spec. 3. Claims
1 and 10 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is
reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of detecting reflections in a communication
channel comprising:
filtering a first signal using a first multi-rate filtering system
having a first bandpass characteristic to provide a first filtered signal,
the first filtered signal comprising energy levels due to aliasing that are
less than,(<), 20 dB below the level of the first filtered signal;
filtering a second signal using a second multi-rate filtering
system having a second bandpass characteristic to provide a second
filtered signal;
adaptively filtering the first filtered signal and the second filtered
signal to provide filter coefficients; and
analyzing the filter coefficients to provide a time delay
corresponding to each of one or more reflections.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Jones
Oh et al. ("Oh")
Dyba et al. ("Dyba")
Chandran et al.
("Chandran")
Woodard et al.
("Woodard")
Wang et al. ("Wang")
us 6,021,192
US 2003/0179840 Al
US 2003/0235294 Al
US 2005/0131678 Al
US 7,027,942 Bl
US 7, 102,548 Bl
2
Feb. 1,2000
Sept. 25, 2003
Dec. 25, 2003
June 16, 2005
Apr. 11, 2006
Sept. 5, 2006
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Dyba and Woodard. Final Act. 2---6.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dyba, Woodard, and Wang. Final
Act. 6-7.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dyba, Woodard, and Oh. Final Act.
7-8.
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dyba, Woodard, and Chandran. Final
Act. 9.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Dyba, Woodard, and Jones. Final
Act. 11.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Dyba
and Woodard teaches or suggests "filtering a first signal using a first multi-
rate filtering system having a first bandpass characteristic to provide a first
filtered signal, the first filtered signal comprising energy levels due to
3
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
aliasing that are less than, ( <), 20 dB below the level of the first filtered
signal," as recited in claim 1?
2. Was the Examiner's rationale for modifying Dyba based on
Woodard erroneous because Woodard teaches away from the claimed
combination?
DISCUSSION
After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings
and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-24. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 2-12; Ans. 12-15. We add the
following for emphasis and completeness.
Issue 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Woodard's Figure 10, which
illustrates "a graph depicting the aliasing energy as a function of decimation
for various baseband filter orders," teaches or suggests "a multi-rate filtering
system, wherein a first filtered signal comprises energy levels due to aliasing
that are less than 20 dB below the level of the first filtered signal." Final
Act. 3; Ans. 12 (see also Woodard col. 4, 11. 7-8, col. 10, 11. 7-28, and col. 8,
1. 46 to col. 9, 1. 55).
Appellants contend Woodard's Figure 10 does not show any relation
between first filtered signal levels and aliasing levels. Appeal Br. 8. We
disagree. In describing the filter of Figure 10, Woodard indicates that the
aliasing energy AD indicated by the y-axis of Figure 10 is a ratio of the
4
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
aliasing energy to the filtered signal levels of Woodard's filter. See
Woodard col. 9, 11. 37--40 ("The aliasing energy caused by the nmltirate
filter is defined as the ratio of the aliasing energy in the passband to the total
energy and expressed in dB."). We agree, therefore, with the Examiner's
finding that the filter of Woodard's Figure 10 reduces aliasing energy, with
respect to the total energy in the passband, by less than 20 dB. Ans. 14
(citing Woodard, Fig. 10).
Indeed, Appellants note that "almost any filter has some point in its
response where energy is reduced by less than 20 dB" and, more
specifically, acknowledge that in Woodard's Figure 10 "there are some
combinations where aliasing energy appears to be reduced less than 20 dB."
Appeal Br. 8. Despite this acknowledgment, Appellants contend "[t]here is
nothing about finding a filter with a response region with less than 20 dB of
rejection that begins to anticipate the claimed invention." Appeal Br. 8.
We disagree with Appellants; arguments. Initially, we note that the
Examiner does not rely on Woodard to anticipate claim 1under35 U.S.C.
§ 102 but instead rejects claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combination of Dyba and Woodard. More specifically, the Examiner
finds that in Woodard, "[t]he prototype filter with N= 512 reduces aliasing
energy by less than 20 dB at a D before maximum decimation" 3 and thus,
finds Woodard teaches or suggests "the first filtered signal comprises energy
levels due to aliasing that are less than, ( <), 20 dB below the level of the first
3See, e.g., Woodard col. 5, 11. 5-7 and col. 6, 11. 31---67 for exemplary
discussion of decimation and the decimation factor D.
5
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
filtered signal," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10 (citing, inter alia,
Woodard Fig. 10). We agree with the Examiner's findings.
We also agree with the Examiner's finding that a filter that has, at
some point in its response, a filtered signal output that comprises aliasing
energy levels that are less than 20dB below the energy level of the filtered
signal, including the Woodard filter, teaches the claimed "comprising energy
levels due to aliasing that are less than, ( <), 20 dB below the level of the first
filter[ ed] signal" requirement. Final Act. 12.
Appellants additionally contend Woodard never discloses or suggests
the use of filters with less than 20 dB of reduction. Appeal Br. 9. We find
this argument unpersuasive, particularly in light of Appellants' contradictory
statement that "there are some combinations [of Woodard's filter] where
aliasing energy appears to be reduced less than 20 dB." Id. We also agree
with the Examiner's finding that claim 1 does not limit the filter to providing
exclusively a filtered signal with energy levels due to aliasing that are less
than 20 dB below the level of the filtered signal. Final Act. 12.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Dyba and Woodard teaches or suggests "filtering a first
signal," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3.
Issue 2
Appellants contend Woodard teaches away from the claimed
invention because Woodard discusses a "sweet spot" where aliasing is
reduced by greater than 45 dB. Appeal Br. 8. We disagree with Appellants'
contention. If a prior art reference discloses a different solution to a similar
problem, it does not teach away from the claimed subject matter unless the
6
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
prior art reference also criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here,
it is undisputed that Woodard teaches "some combinations where aliasing
energy appears to be reduced less than 20 dB." Appeal Br. 8. Appellants
contend, nevertheless, that "Woodard teaches away from such low levels of
aliasing reduction" because Woodard describes as a "sweet spot" a filter
response where aliasing is reduced by higher levels, i.e., greater than 45 dB.
Id. (citing Woodard Fig. 10).
We agree with the Examiner that Woodard does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution simply because
Woodard indicates a sweet spot may exist where aliasing is reduced by
greater than 45 dB. Appeal Br. 14. We agree with the Examiner's rationale
that "other sweet spots can exist." Ans. 14--15. Thus, rather than teaching
away from the claimed combination, Woodard discusses other solutions to
the problem of aliasing without specifically discrediting reducing alias
energy less than 20 dB.
Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Claim 10, which
Appellants do not argue separately, recites a system with requirements
analogous to those of claim 1 and stands rejected on the same basis and,
thus, for the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claim 10 is also
sustained. Appeal Br. 9. Appellants do not make any other substantive
argument regarding the rejection of dependent claims 3-9 and 12-24 and so
the rejection of these claims is also sustained. See App. Br. 9-11.
7
Appeal2015-006759
Application 11/343,781
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-10, and 12-
24.4
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
4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
ascertaining whether independent claims 1 and 10 meet the requirements of
35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, to particularly point out and distinctly
define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the
patent grant. As an example, the Examiner should ascertain whether there is
sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the level of the first filtered
signal."
8