Ex Parte Tikka

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12747276 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121747,276 08/16/2010
26161 7590 03/28/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (BO)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pasi Tikka
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.
14219-0225US1 5709
EXAMINER
LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte P ASI TIKKA
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--11, 13, 14, and 16, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 12, and
15 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Epcos AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention generally relates to a front-end circuit for at
least one FDD mobile radio system and at least one TDD mobile radio
system, both of which use a shared band. Abstract. 2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (with the
disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A front-end circuit for a mobile radio, the front-end
circuit, comprising:
a first Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD)
transmission path for a first FDD mobile radio system, the first
FDD transmission path comprising a transmission amplifier and
a duplexer comprising a transmission filter element;
a first Time Division Duplexing (TDD) transmission path
for a first TDD mobile radio system, the first TDD transmission
path comprising a transmission amplifier;
an antenna connection configured for connecting to the
duplexer or to the first TDD transmission path;
at least one transmission filter, the at least one
transmission filter comprising a surface acoustic wave (SAW)
filter or a Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator (FBAR) filter; and
a switch configuration to connect the at least one
transmission filter to the first FDD transmission path or to the
first TDD transmission path;
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed March 6, 2013
("Final Act."); Appellant's Appeal Brief filed Aug. 29, 2013 ("App. Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed Nov. 13, 2013 ("Ans."); Appellant's Reply
Brief filed Jan. 13, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); and the Amended Specification filed
June 10, 2010 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
wherein the first TDD mobile radio system and the first
FDD mobile radio system use a same first frequency band;
wherein the transmission amplifier in the first FDD
transmission path is a first transmission amplifier;
wherein the transmission amplifier in the first TDD
transmission path is a second transmission amplifier;
wherein the switch configuration is configured to connect
the at least one transmission filter to the first transmission
amplifier or to the second transmission amplifier; and
wherein the first TDD system is a Global System for
Mobile communications (GSM) system and the first FDD
system is a Wideband-Code Division Multiple Access
(WCDMA) system.
References
I Sanders I US 6,567 ,653 B 1 I May 20, 2003
Block I US 2009/0093270 Al I Apr. 9, 2009
Background Section of Applicant's Specification ("AAPA")
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 4--11, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sanders, Block, and
AAPA.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10-16) and Reply Brief (Reply Br.
3
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
2-9) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's arguments.
Unless otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-11) and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-15), and we concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and highlight specific arguments
as presented in the Briefs.
Appellant contends Sanders, either alone or in combination with
Block, is not understood to disclose or suggest the disputed limitations of
claim 1. App. Br. 12-15. In particular, Appellant argues Sanders refers to a
mobile terminal having a digital system (TIA/EIA-136) and an analog
system (AMPS) (citing column 1, line 61 to column 2, line 16), and "the
disadvantages of using separate transmit amplifiers in such system" (citing
column 2, lines 17-20). App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellant also
argues claim 1 recites two digital systems-the first TDD system is a GSM
system and the first FDD system is a WCDMA system-whereas Sanders
describes an analog and a digital system. App. Br. 14--15. Thus, according
to Appellant, it would not have been obvious to modify Sanders to
incorporate WCDMA and GSM systems, which require different operational
modes for the amplifiers. App. Br. at 14; Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Sanders teaches it is
common for mobile communications devices to include dual operating
modes such as AMPS analog capability and TIA/EIA-136 digital capability.
See Sanders 1: 61-2: 16. As the Examiner finds, Sanders teaches an AMPS
system uses a non-linear amplifier, and a TIA/EIA-36 system requires a liner
amplifier. Ans. 13 (see Sanders 2:1-16). As the Examiner also finds, and
4
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
we agree, Sanders teaches that one design option for a dual mode mobile
terminal is to include two separate transmit amplifiers, one biased for
digital-mode operation and one biased for analog-mode operation. Ans. 13
(citing Sanders 2: 17-20). The Examiner further finds that, based on
Sanders' disclosure of using two different amplifiers for two different
technologies, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the
art to use separate transmit amplifiers in separate transmission paths, the first
FDD path and the first TDD path, for the two different digital modes of
operation disclosed in AAPA, WCDMA and GSM, respectively, as set forth
in claim 1. Ans. 14--15. We also agree with this finding. First, although
Appellant correctly argues Sanders characterizes the option of using two
separate transmit amplifiers as an "unattractive proposition[]" (see Reply Br.
4 citing Sanders 2: 17-23), this argument is not persuasive because Sanders
expressly teaches that using two separate transmit amplifiers in a dual-mode
terminal is a known technique, regardless of any arguable problems
associated therewith. Second, Appellant's argument that it would not have
been obvious to modify Sanders to incorporate two digital systems
(WCDMA and GSM), instead of a digital and an analog system, with
different operational modes for the amplifiers in the FDD and TDD paths, is
also not persuasive because Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence
or argument to show that modifying Sanders to use different operating
modes and two separate and different linear amplifiers was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Absent
such evidence or argument, we "take account of the inferences and creative
5
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," and find using
different operating modes, WCDMA and GSM, with separate and different
linear amplifiers was within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Based upon the Examiner's findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art to teach or suggest the disputed limitations
of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion
of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4--11, 13,
and 14, which are not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellant argues claim 16 is patentable for at least some of the reasons
argued with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 8. Because
the limitations of clam 16 quoted by Appellant are different than the argued
features of claim 1, we conclude Appellant's argument regarding claim 16 is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Thus, for this reason and
because we do not find Appellant's arguments regarding claim 1 persuasive
for the reasons discussed supra, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--11, 13, 14,
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
6
Appeal2014-003434
Application 12/747,276
AFFIRMED
7