Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 19, 201311559396 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHAO-CHENG LEE and YING-YAO LIN ____________________ Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claims are directed to circuits and methods for eliminating harmonic mixing signals in signal transmission. Spec. ¶2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A mixer comprising: a mixing unit, for receiving an input signal and a modulated signal and mixing the input signal and the modulated signal to generate an output signal; and a modulation output unit, for generating the modulated signal; wherein the modulated signal is a pulse width modulation signal. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kohdaka US 5,977,896 Nov. 2, 1999 Ipek US 2001/0018334 A1 Aug. 30, 2001 Smith US 2003/0138062 A1 July 24, 2003 Wu US 6,799,029 B2 Sept 28, 2004 Hickling US 2006/0115005 A1 June 1, 2006 Belot US 7,280,003 B2 Oct. 9, 2007 Suzuki US 7,280,163 B2 Oct. 9, 2007 Rejections Claims 1, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot and Hickling. Ans. 4-6. Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 3 Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Wu. Ans. 6-7. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 18-20, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Smith. Ans. 7-10. Claims 6-8 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, Smith, and Suzuki. Ans. 10-12. Claims 14, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Kohdaka. Ans. 12-13. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, Smith, and Ipek. Ans. 13-14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in both the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (App. Br. 7-21; Reply Br. 1). Rather than exhaustively repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Office Action 2-18); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-27). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 17, and 22 Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1 for a number of reasons. App. Br. 7-15. Appellants assert, for example, that Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 4 because the output of Belot’s Sigma-Delta modulator (Fig. 2, element 8) is not input into “the alleged mixing units” (elements 4 and 5) and instead is input into a multiplier (element 3), “the rejection . . . should be overturned.” App. Br. at 8. Appellants also assert that the rationale for combining Belot and Hickling is incomplete and improper. Id. at 9. For example, they argue that the basis for the Examiner’s combination appears to be “improper hindsight reconstruction” because there is no finding that Belot alone fails to “achiev[e] high resolution output waveforms,” the rationale provided by the Examiner for combining the references. Id. at 11. Appellants argue that the rejections of claims 17 and 22 should be overturned for similar reasons. Id. at 15. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner states, for example, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “mixing unit . . . receiving . . . a [pulse width] modulated signal,” Belot’s teaching of the Delta-Sigma modulator’s output first entering the multiplier before being input into the mixer meets the recited limitation. Ans. 14-16. We agree with the Examiner’s finding. For the reasons stated by the Examiner (id. at 19-20), we also agree that the Examiner did not improperly use hindsight in making the rejection. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-11) that the Examiner has not set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). On the record before us, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or arguments to convince us that the Examiner’s articulated reasoning was irrational and therefore Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 5 failed to meet his burden in establishing a prima facie case for unpatentability. Accordingly, for the reasons stated by the Examiner, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 17 and 22, which Appellants do not separately argue. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 2 and 3 Appellants argue the rejection of claims 2 and 3 are improper because the motivation to combine Wu with Belot and Hickling does not follow the legal standard. App. Br. 15-16. We are not persuaded and adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. Ans. 21. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 18-20 and 23-25 Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 4 is in error because “there is [sic] simply no comparable structures in Smith that would correspond to the digital [sic, delta] sigma modulator or the modulation output unit” and because the basis for combining Smith with Belot and Hickling does not follow the legal standard. App. Br. 16-17. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 5 is in error (id. at 17-19), stating that the rejection amounts to “nothing more than a piecemeal combination of independent portions of unrelated prior art references.” Id. at 18. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and adopt the Examiner’s response thereto. Ans. 22. For emphasis, we note that a “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The Examiner cites Smith’s figure 2, which teaches an oscillator signal being input into “cos” and “sin” tables to produce a signals Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 6 that, when mixed with the “RF” signal, produces sigma delta modulated signals I and Q. Ans. 8, 22-23. Appellants have not presented persuasive evidence or argument that the Examiner’s proposed combination of familiar elements would yield anything but predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We sustain the rejections of claims 4 and 5 and of claims 9, 10, 15, 18- 20 and 23-25 argued therewith. App. Br. 14-19. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Remaining Dependent Claims We have reviewed Appellants’ additional arguments (App. Br. 19-21) alleging error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion to reject the remaining claims (Final Office Action 16-18). We disagree with Appellants’ arguments and adopt as our own the Examiner’s response thereto (Ans. 24-27). 1 We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims. CONCLUSIONS On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot and Hickling. On this record, the he Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Wu. On this record, the he Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 15, 18-20, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Smith. 1 We note that the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 14 (Ans. 25-27) does not reference claim 14 by number but recites the text of claim 14. Appeal 2011-003665 Application 11/559,396 7 On this record, the he Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6-8 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, Smith, and Suzuki. On this record, the he Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 14, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, and Kohdaka. On this record, the he Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Belot, Hickling, Smith, and Ipek. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 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). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation