Ex Parte Maxim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 26, 201814568495 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/568,495 12/12/2014 27820 7590 07/30/2018 WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C. 106 Pinedale Springs Way Cary, NC 27511 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR George Maxim 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. 2867-1234 6378 EXAMINER JUSTUS, RALPH H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2018 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): patents@wt-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE MAXIM, BAKER SCOTT, and DIRK ROBERT WALTER LEIPOLD Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants indicated that Qorvo US, Inc. is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 The claims are directed to a radio frequency power amplifier with noise reduction feedback linearization. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Radio frequency (RF) power amplifier (PA) circuitry compnsmg: an RF signal path coupled between an RF input node and an RF output node; an adjustable component coupled in the RF signal path; a distortion compensation feedback loop coupled in parallel with at least a portion of the RF signal path; distortion compensation circuitry coupled in the distortion compensation feedback loop and configured to adjust one or more parameters of the adjustable component via a component adjustment signal based on a measurement of a signal at the RF output node; RF noise filtering circuitry coupled in the RF signal path and configured to attenuate noise in the RF signal path; and baseband noise filtering circuitry coupled between the distortion compensation circuitry and the adjustable component and configured to attenuate noise in the component adjustment signal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Joardar et al. (Hereinafter "Joardar") Shakeshaft et al. (Hereinafter "Shakeshaft") US 5,475,255 Dec. 12, 1995 US 2005/0191976 Al Sept. 1, 2005 Lee et al. (Hereinafter "Lee") US 2007 /0004368 Al Jan. 4, 2007 Vinayak et al. (Hereinafter "Vinayak") US 7,933,570 B2 Apr. 26, 2011 2 Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 Brown et al. (Hereinafter "Brown") US 8,030,997 B2 Oct. 4, 2011 Giannini et al. (Hereinafter "Giannini") US 2012/0063496 Al Mar. 15, 2012 Desclos et al. (Hereinafter "Desclos") US 2013/0137384 Al May 30, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 14, 17, 20-25, and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Desclos, Shakeshaft, and Giannini. (Final Act. 3--4). Claims 4, 18, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Desclos, Shakeshaft, and Giannini in view of Vina yak. (Final Act. 7). Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Desclos, Shakeshaft, Giannini, and Vinayak in view of Lee. (Final Act. 9). Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Desclos, Shakeshaft, and Giannini in view of Brown. (Final Act. 9). Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Desclos, Shakeshaft, and Giannini in view of Joardar. (Final Act. 11 ). ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 14 Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner's position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, we look to Appellants' Briefs to show error in 3 Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 the Examiner's proffered prima facie case. With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants contend that neither Desclos, Shakeshaft, or Giannini disclose "a distortion compensation feedback loop and configured to adjust one or more parameters of an adjustable component in an RF signal path based on a measurement of a signal at an RF output node" because Appellants contend the attenuator of Figure 5 is not compatible with the lookup table of Figure 4. (App. Br. 5---6). Appellants further contend that the Examiner cherry picked combinations of embodiments that are not compatible with one another and that Desclos does not show an adjustable component coupled in an RF signal path and configured to provide a component adjustment signal to the adjustable component based on measurement of a signal at an RF node (App. Br. 6). Finally, Appellants contend neither Desclos, nor Shakeshaft describe any baseband noise circuitry and neither does Giannini. (App. Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants argue the passive filter component of Giannini is not equivalent to the baseband noise filtering circuity recited in claim 1. Thus, Giannini cannot suggest a baseband noise filtering circuit coupled between the distortion compensation circuitry and the adjustable component and configured to attenuate noise in the component adjustment signal. (App. Br. 6-7). The Examiner finds Desclos teaches the mixer (Fig. 4) is configured to provide an adjustment signal where the mixer is considered the adjustable component (Ans. 13). Further, the Examiner finds the mixer of Desclos also provides an adjustment signal based on a summed input signal based on the measurement of Vout from the power amplifier (PA) through the coupler. 4 Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 (Ans. 13). Additionally, the Examiner finds Desclos and Shakeshaft fail to disclose baseband noise filtering circuitry (Final Act. 4). Finally, the Examiner finds that Giannini teaches the noise modulation and noise filtering circuity where feedback loops 340 and 350 remove the noise (Final Act. 4). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that Fig. 3 of Giannini does not teach or suggest a distortion compensation circuitry in the baseband signal path (App. Br. 7) as there are no components disclosed or depicted that are coupled to adjustable components and distortion circuitry that attenuate noise, as required by the claim. Moreover, we are persuaded that Giannini does not provide an adjustment signal to an adjustable component in the RF signal path. (App. Br. 7). Additionally, we agree with Appellants that the attenuator of Desclos Fig. 5 is described and used in a feedforward linearization technique, while Fig. 4 is described as depicting a digital pre- distortion technique. (Desclos ,r,r 34--35 and ,r,r 37-38). The latter digital pre-distortion technique uses two separate loops ( e.g. signal canceling and error canceling). The former feedforward linearization technique does not use loops, but rather uses an adaptation algorithm with an adjustable look up table. Thus, differences exist in the two techniques. Appellants contend, and we agree, that the Examiner has not provided a teaching or motivation as to why the skilled artisan would make the proffered modification to either circuit to teach or suggest the elements of the claimed invention. (App. Br. 5). Further, the Examiner relies upon extrinsic evidence in the rejection to "World Class Designs, Kent Williston, Editor, Newnes 2009" (hereinafter "Williston"), to define an adjacent channel leakage ratio as the "ratio in dBc 5 Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 between the measured power within the carrier bandwidth relative to the noise level in an adjacent empty carrier channel," to show how noise performance can be improved. (Ans. 14). The Examiner further finds that, based on the combination of Desclos, Shakeshaft and Giannini with the teachings of Williston, it "would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the baseband linearization and filtering of Desclos with distortion compensation configuration applied to Fig. 4 with a conventional baseband noise filter of Giannini." (Ans. 14). The Examiner however must positively recite the reference in the statement of the rejection if relied upon to support the rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, n.3 (CCPA 1970). Because the Examiner has not done so here, we find the Examiner's reliance thereon to be inappropriate and does not form a part of the grounds of the rejection. Therefore, we find a second error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness, and we for this second reason, do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-10. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Appellants have shown error in the Examiner's factual findings and conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Desclos, Shakeshaft and Giannini. We note that independent claim 14 contains similar limitations, and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14, and dependent claims 17, 20-25, 27-29 based on the same rationale as representative independent claim 1. Claims 4, 5, 11, 13, 18, 19, 26, 30, and 31 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4, 18 and 26 as obvious over Desclos, Shakeshaft and Giannini for at least the same 6 Appeal 2017-011036 Application 14/568,495 reasons as discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 14. (App. Br. 8-9). Accordingly, because the Examiner has not identified how the additional references of Lee, Brown, and J oardar remedy the noted deficiencies, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 11, 13, 18, 19, 26, 30, and 3 lfor the same reasons, as presented for claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-31 based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation