Ex Parte Kocaman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

11116160 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
11/116,160 04/27/2005 Namik Kemal Kocaman BU4412/0033-126001 2195
7590 07/31/2012
Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP
C/O Intellevate
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
TRA, ANH QUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NAMIK KEMAL KOCAMAN and AFSHIN MOMTAZ
____________

Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,1601
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 5-22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is Broadcom Inc.
2 Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,160

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns bandwidth adjustment of a signal
using a Continuous Time Filter (CTF). The filter includes a plurality of CTF
stages cascaded one after another (Spec. 2). Bandwidth adjustment across
the first stage and second stage is controlled using “semi-interleaved”
thermometer coding in which two subsets of stages of the filter are caused to
have a roughly equal number of capacitances “on” (Spec. 8).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A continuous time filter, comprising:

a first stage for adjusting a bandwidth of a signal;

a second stage for adjusting the bandwidth of the signal
subsequent to the first stage,

wherein each stage comprises

a first capacitor having a first capacitance and

a second capacitor having a second capacitance for
providing substantially uniform step sizes for bandwidth
adjustment; and

wherein a bandwidth adjustment across the first stage and
the second stage is configured to be controlled using a semi-
interleaved thermometer coding.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
Bhattacharjee US 2006/0028275 A1 Feb. 9, 2006
Pietruszynski US 2003/0206070 A1 Nov. 6, 2003

Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,160

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 5-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Bhattacharjee in view of Pietruszynski.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that neither reference teaches or suggests
“controlling the bandwidth adjustment across the first stage and the second
stage using a semi-interleaved thermometer coding” (App. Br. 9) (emphasis
omitted). Appellants contend that Pietruszynski teaches “binary coding as a
first embodiment (Fig. 2) and thermometer coding as a second embodiment
(Fig. 3),” and does not teach a combination of the two coding approaches
(id.).
Appellants further argue that “the combination of Bhattacharjee and
Pietruszynski would render Pietruszynski insufficient for its intended
purpose” (App. Br. 12), and that Bhattacharjee teaches away from the
claimed semi-interleaved control scheme, because Bhattacharjee teaches that
its gain control circuit is controlled by an adaptive controller that uses
spectral analysis techniques, not thermometer coding (App. Br. 13).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Pietruszynski teach bandwidth adjustment configured to be
controlled using “semi-interleaved thermometer coding,” interpreting the
term consistent with Appellants’ Specification?
2. Would the Examiner’s proposed combination render Bhattacharjee
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose?
3. Does Bhattacharjee teach away from combination with
Pietruszynski?

Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,160

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)
Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the
Examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to
one of ordinary skill in the art, considering “the degree to which one
reference might accurately discredit another.” In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991). If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Further, our reviewing court
has held that “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of
ordinary skill, upon examining] the reference, would be discouraged from
following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Para-Ordnance
App
App

Mfg.
(citin

and t
the t
Pietr
therm
therm
Figu
inter
(Rep
codin
Subs
on”
Vari
eal 2010-0
lication 11
,Inc. v. SG
g In re Gu
Appellan
hermomet
wo embod
uszynski’s
ometer c
ometer c
re 4 teache
leaved the
ly Br. 2).
g that res
et B, then
(Reply Br.
We do n
Below is
Figure 4
able Gain

05949
/116,160
S Importe
rley, 27 F
Semi-
ts argue th
er coding
iments (Ap
Figure 4
oding, mee
oding” (An
s thermom
rmometer
According
ults in firs
more part
3).
ot agree w
a reprodu
is a diagra
Amplifier
rs Int’l, In
.3d 551, 5
AN
interleave
at Pietrus
in Figure 3
p. Br. 9).
illustrates
ting the cl
s. 5). Ap
eter codin
coding, be
to Appel
t parts of S
s of Subse
ith Appell
ction of A
m of one
(VGA) cir
5
c., 73 F.3d
53 (Fed. C
ALYSIS
d thermom
zynski tea
, but at no
The Exam
a combina
aim limita
pellants th
g, but not
cause the
lants, “Ass
ubset A b
t A, then m
ants’ char
ppellants’
embodime
cuit havin
1085, 109
ir. 1994).
eter codin
ches binar
point doe
iner respo
tion of bin
tion of “se
en respond
interleave
coding itse
ignee’s T
eing turne
ore parts
acterizatio
Figure 4:
nt of a mu
g six stage
0 (Fed. C

g
y coding i
s Pietrusz
nds that
ary coding
mi-interle
that Pietr
d or semi-
lf is not in
]able 1 . .
d on, then
of Subset
n of its Ta
lti-stage C
s (Spec. 2
ir. 1995)
n Figure 2
ynski mix
and
aved
uszynski
terleaved
. shows a
parts of
B, and so
ble 1.
TF and
).
,

App
App

Tabl
(Spe
(n-1)
appr
illus
Figu
SUB
Spec
contr
to A
parts
Subs
chan
num
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Below is
e 1. Numb
c. 8).
Appellan
capacitan
oximately
trated in F
re 4). For
SETA and
ification c
ol SUBSE
ppellants’
of Subset
et A, then
ges the CT
bers of cap
05949
/116,160
a reprodu
er of capa
ts’ Table
ces are tur
evenly dis
igure 4) an
example,
2 capacit
ontains no
TA and S
argument,
A being t
more part
F setting,
acitors sw
ction of A
citances O
1 tells us t
ned ON, t
tributed be
d SUBSE
for CTF se
ances are O
disclosur
UBSETB
Table 1 d
urned on, t
s of Subse
an approx
itched ON
6
ppellants’
N versus C
hat, for a g
hat numbe
tween SU
TB (Stage
tting 6, 3
N in SUB
e that the t
are in any
oes not tea
hen parts
t B” (Repl
imate bala
in Subset
Table 1:
TF Settin
iven CTF
r of ON ca
BSETA (S
s 4, 5, and
capacitanc
SETB. A
hermomet
way “inte
ch a codin
of Subset B
y Br. 3). I
nce is mai
A and Su
g (1-31) w
setting n,
pacitance
tages 1, 2
6 illustrat
es are ON
ppellants’
er codes u
rleaved.”
g “that res
, then mo
t is true th
ntained in
bset B. O

here k=15
a total of
s being
, and 3
ed in
in

sed to
Contrary
ults in firs
re parts of
at as one
the
ne would

t

Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,160

7
control Subset A and Subset B with two separate thermometer codes that
may be concatenated, but are not disclosed as being interleaved in any way.
Thus, we find that Appellants’ disclosed thermometer coding scheme
is not actually “interleaved” or “semi-interleaved.” Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner that Pietruszynski’s composite input code, “formed by
concatenating or appending the m bit input code to the n bit input code”
(¶ [0037]), meets Appellants’ limitation of “semi-interleaved thermometer
code,” interpreting the limitation in light of the Specification.
Unsuitability for intended purpose argument
The Examiner proposes modifying Bhattacharjee in view of the
teachings of Pietruszynski (Ans. 3-4). Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner’s proposed modification “would render Pietruszynski insufficient
for its intended purpose” is thus legally irrelevant, because Bhattacharjee,
rather than Pietruszynski, is the prior art invention being modified. See
Gordon, 733 F.2d at 902.
Teaching away argument
Appellants’ argument that Bhattacharjee teaches away from the
claimed invention (a semi-interleaved thermometer control scheme), because
Bhattacharjee’s gain control circuit “is controlled by an ‘adaptive controller
155 that may use spectral analysis techniques for determining how close to
the ideal rectangular pulse shape the output signal pulses of output port 158’
are” (App. Br. 13, citing Bhattacharjee, ¶ [0030]), is not persuasive to show
Examiner error. A reference teaches away from the claimed invention when
a person of ordinary skill in the art “would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent
from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553.
Appeal 2010-005949
Application 11/116,160

8
Appellants’ assertion that “ ‘spectral analysis’ is not thermometer coding”
(App. Br. 13) establishes only that Bhattacharjee teaches a technique
different from that claimed; it fails to establish that one of ordinary skill in
the art would be discouraged from modifying Bhattacharjee in the manner
proposed by the Examiner.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 1, 2, and 5-22 under § 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharjee
in view of Pietruszynski. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Pietruszynski teaches bandwidth adjustment configured to be
controlled using “semi-interleaved thermometer coding,” interpreting the
term consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
2. The Examiner’s proposed combination would not render
Bhattacharjee unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
3. Bhattacharjee does not teach away from combination with
Pietruszynski.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-22 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)(1)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

llw