Ex Parte Singerl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2018

14931195 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/931,195 11/03/2015
51092 7590 11/23/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC.
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Singer!
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.
INFAP504US 8123
EXAMINER
HAILEGIORGIS, FITWI Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2018 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER SINGERL, THOMAS MAGESACHER,
and MARTIN MATALN
Appeal2018-003776
Application 14/931, 195 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is Infineon
Technologies AG. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003 77 6
Application 14/931, 195
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-7, 9, and 11-20. Claims 8 and 10 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Appellant's disclosed invention relates to an analog pre-distorter for a
power amplifier. Spec. ,r 17. Specifically, the pre-distorter is a non-linear
system block that modifies or pre-distorts an original input signal so that a
non-linear power amplifier produces a linear or substantially linear output.
Spec. ,r 19. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An RF transmitter arrangement usmg analog pre-
distortion, the arrangement comprising:
an analog IQ processor configured to apply a non-linear
distortion to an analog original signal based on one or more non-
linear splines to generate an RF output signal;
a spline generator configured to generate the one or more
non-linear splines based on an envelope of the analog original
signal and one or more pre-distortion parameters;
a parameter generator configured to generate the one or
more pre-distortion parameters based on the envelope and a
coupled feedback signal; and
a non-linear amplifier chain configured to amplify the RF
output signal to generate a transmission signal relative to the
2
Appeal 2018-003 77 6
Application 14/931, 195
analog original signal, wherein the coupled feedback signal is
derived from the transmission signal.
App. Br. 12 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Briffa et al.(US 6,075,411; June 13,
2000), Kenington (US 2011/0151806 Al; June 23, 2011), and DeBruyn et
al. (US 2004/0136470 Al; July 15, 2004).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa, Kenington, DeBruyn, and Thron et al. (US
6,477,477 Bl; Nov. 5, 2002).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa, Kenington, DeBruyn, and Keerthi (US
2008/0008263 Al; Jan. 10, 2008).
Claims 12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa and DeBruyn.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa, DeBruyn, and Thron.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa, DeBruyn, Thron, and Kenington.
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Briffa and Kenington.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Briffa, Kenington, and
DeBruyn discloses all the limitations of representative independent claim 1,
3
Appeal 2018-003 77 6
Application 14/931, 195
including that Briffa teaches "a parameter generator configured to generate
the one or more pre-distortion parameters based on the envelope and a
coupled feedback signal." Final Act. 6-8; Ans. 4. Appellant contends
Briffa fails to teach generating pre-distortion parameters based on an
envelope and a coupled feedback signal. App. Br. 5---6, Reply Br. 3. 2 We
agree with Appellant.
Briffa describes a pre-distortion system 100 that includes a pre-
distortion circuit 37 that generates an analog pre-distortion signal to be
applied to an RF input signal for a power amplifier. Briffa, col. 5, 11. 60-65.
Briffa's pre-distortion circuit 37 generates the pre-distortion signal based on
a signal "x," which is an RF input signal, and certain coefficients provided
by a controller 40. Briffa, col. 6, 11. 13-36; Fig. 3. Briffa's controller 40
receives as input an error signal "e" representing the difference between a
scaled output signal and a delayed input signal of the pre-distortion system
100 and "adjusts the predistortion signal coefficients ... to minimize the
error signal e." Briffa, col. 6, 1. 67---col. 7, 1. 6. In short, the controller 40
receives an error signal and provides coefficients to the pre-distortion circuit
37, and the pre-distortion circuit 37 receives the coefficients and an RF input
signal and generates a pre-distortion signal. See Briffa, col. 6, 1. 13---col. 7,
1. 6; Fig. 3.
The Examiner finds Briffa teaches "a controller ( 40 in figure 3 or 16
in figure 2) generating one or more predistortion parameters/coefficients
based on envelope detector (inside preD) and a coupled feedback (from item
45)." Ans. 4. The Examiner relies on Briffa's controller 40 in Figure 3 (or
2 Although Appellant's detailed argument on the generation of pre-distortion
parameters is presented with respect to independent claim 18, Appellant
indicates this argument also applies to independent claim 1. See App. Br. 7.
4
Appeal 2018-003 77 6
Application 14/931, 195
similar controller 16 in Figure 2) for meeting the claimed "parameter
generator," where the coefficients provided by the controller meet the
claimed "pre-distortion parameters." See Ans. 4. As discussed above,
however, Briffa's controller 40 receives only the error signal "e" as input,
which the Examiner appears to rely upon for teaching the claimed "coupled
feedback signal." See id.; Briffa, col. 6, 1. 67---col. 7, 1. 6; Fig. 3. But claim 1
requires the "parameter generator" be configured to generate "pre-distortion
parameters based on the envelope and a coupled feedback signal." The
Examiner has not shown Briffa's controller 40 receives an "envelope" in
addition to a "coupled feedback signal" such that the coefficients-the
claimed "pre-distortion parameters"-are based on both an "envelope" and a
"coupled feedback signal." Rather, the Examiner relies on an alleged
envelope detection that occurs in Briffa's pre-distortion circuit 37 for
teaching "pre-distortion parameters" based in part on an "envelope." See
Ans. 4.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner's findings are in error
(App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3) because Briffa's controller 40 (or similar
controller 16) cannot generate "pre-distortion parameters based on the
envelope" when envelope detection occurs, according to the Examiner (see
Ans. 4), in Briffa's pre-distortion circuit 37. That is, Briffa's coefficients
have already been generated by the time they are provided to the pre-
distortion circuit 3 7, and therefore cannot be generated based on an envelope
detected in the pre-distortion circuit 3 7. See Briffa, Fig. 3. The Examiner
has not shown Briffa teaches any input into controller 40 that includes an
envelope on which the coefficients may be based.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 12 and 18 which
5
Appeal 2018-003 77 6
Application 14/931, 195
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11, 13-17,
19, and 20 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 11-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, and 11-
20.
REVERSED
6