Ex Parte Yanduru et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 201712613402 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/613,402 11/05/2009 Naveen Krishna Yanduru TI-38198A 6204 23494 7590 02/22/2017 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER NGUYEN, DUC M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2017 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NAVEEN KRISHNA YANDURU, GREGORY ERIC HOWARD, DANIELLE GRIFFITH, and SRINIVASAN VENKATRAMAN Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,4021 Technology Center 2600 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 21—40, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Technology The application relates to integrating “signal filters in a multiband transceiver.” Spec. Abstract. Claims 21, 35, and 36 are illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 21. A multiband transceiver, comprising: a first matching network associated with a first sroup of communication protocols'.; a first low noise amplifier coupling said first matching network to a first high performance filter; a first mixer coupled to said high performance filter: a second matching network associated with another communications protocol; and a second low noise amplifier coupling said second matching network to said high performance filter. 35. A multiband transceiver, comprising: a first matching network associated with a first communications protocol; a first low noise amplifier coupling said first matching network to a high performance filter; a first mixer coupled to said high performance filter; a second matching network associated with a second communications protocol; a second low noise amplifier couplins said second matching network to a second mixer, a third matching network associated with a third communications protocol; and a third low noise amplifier coupling said third matching network to a third mixer. 36. The multiband transceiver of Claim 35, wherein first, second and third communications protocols comprise the group of: GPS, GSM DCS and GSM PCS. Rejections Claims 21 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination ofNakajima et al. (US 5,815,052; Sept. 29, 1998) and Yeh (US 5,995,814; Nov. 30, 1999). Final Act. 18. 2 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 Claims 21—31 and 37-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Keski-Mattinen (US 6,405,025 Bl; June 11, 2002) and Kitazawa et al. (US 6,147,571; Nov. 14, 2000). Final Act. 19. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, and Wang et al. (US 2007/0024377 Al; Feb. 1, 2007). Final Act. 23. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, and Tham et al. (US 6,049,702; Apr. 11, 2000). Final Act. 23. Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Martin et al. (US 7,155,252 B2; Dec. 26, 2006), Thomsen et al. (US 6,584,304 Bl; June 24, 2003), and Ghaem (US 5,634,203; May 27, 1997). Final Act. 24. Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Martin, Thomsen, and Dent et al. (US 2002/0101907 Al; Aug. 1, 2002). Final Act. 25. Claims 21—40 stand rejected on the grounds of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 12—16 of US 7,680,477. Final Act. 27. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Nakajima teaches or suggests “a first matching network associated with a first group of communication protocols,” as recited in independent claim 21? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Keski-Mattinen teaches or suggests “a first matching network associated with a first group of communication protocols,” as recited in independent claim 21? 3 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 3. Did the Examiner err in finding Martin teaches or suggests “a second low noise amplifier coupling said second matching network to a second mixer” and “a third low noise amplifier coupling said third matching network to a third mixer,” as recited in independent claim 35? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding Martin teaches or suggests “first, second and third communications protocols comprise the group of: GPS, GSM DCS and GSM PCS,” as recited in dependent claim 36? 5. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 21—40 for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 12—16 of US 7,680,477? ANALYSIS Obviousness A) Nakajima & Yeh (Claims 21 and 37) Independent claim 21 recites “a first matching network associated with a first group of communication protocolsIndependent claim 37 recites a commensurate limitation. The Examiner relies on Nakajima for teaching this limitation, specifically Nakajima’s “PDC system.” Ans. 17; Final Act. 3. Appellants contend “PDC is a single communication protocol, NOT a ‘GROUP of communication protocols.’” App. Br. 11. We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner’s argument that “Claim 21 and 37 does not recite a filter that supports two communication protocols” (Ans. 21), both claims expressly recite a “group of communication protocols,” which requires two or more protocols. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 37 as obvious over Nakajima and Yeh. 4 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 B) Keski-Mattinen & Kitazawa (Claims 21—31, 37—40); Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, & Wang (Claim 32); and Keski-Mattinen, Kitazawa, & Tham (Claims 33, 34) As discussed above, independent claims 21 and 37 recite a first matching network with “a first group of communication protocols.’ '’ Appellants contend the “Examiner is confusing the concept of ‘different frequency ranges (or bands)’ with the concept of ‘network systems of different standards (or communication protocols).”’ App. Br. 16. “The dual band GSM system described by Keski-Mattinen is a single communication protocol standard having two frequency ranges.” Id. at 17. The Examiner relies on the background of Keski-Mattinen, which states “efforts have been made to develop radio communication devices which can operate in several different frequency ranges and/or in network systems of different standards.” Keski-Mattinen 1:34—37 (emphasis added); Ans. 24—25. The Examiner further asserts “different frequencies would obviously provide different standards.” Ans. 25. “Therefore, absent the showing of a specific structural for different standards, the examiner believes that it would have been obvious within the ability of one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a communication device operating in different communication standards as claimed.” Id. We note Appellants’ assertion that GSM is necessarily a single protocol is contradicted by the Specification, which distinguishes between “GSM DCS” and “GSM PCS” as separate protocols. See Spec. 130, Figs. 4a-4b, claim 36. Nevertheless, even if Keski-Mattinen did teach a system using different standards, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown why it would be obvious for a group of protocols to share an amplifier, filter, and mixer as claimed in claims 21 and 37 of the present 5 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 application. Compare Spec. Fig. 4a (depicting GSM DCS and GSM PCS having separate amplifiers and mixers), with Fig. 4b (depicting GSM DCS and GSM PCS sharing an amplifier, filter, and mixer). The Examiner does not rely on Kitazawa (claims 21—34 and 37-40), Wang (claim 32), or Tham (claims 33 and 34) to cure the above deficiency in Keski-Mattinen. See Final Act. 19—24. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21 and 37, and their dependent claims 22—34 and 38-40 as obvious over Keski- Mattinen and the other cited references. C) Martin & Others (Claim 35) Independent claim 35 recites “a [second / third] low noise amplifier coupling said [second / third] matching network to a [second / third] mixer.” The Examiner relies on two cumulative combinations of references as rendering claim 35 obvious: (1) Martin, Thomsen, and Ghaem, and (2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent. Final Act. 24—26. Martin teaches a filter between the amplifier and the mixer, which Appellants contend fails to meet the claimed “amplifier coupling . . . to a . . . mixer.” App. Br. 30-31, 34—35. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants have not identified anything in the term or in the Specification that would limit “coupling” to “directly coupling.” See, e.g., Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Qualcomm has not provided convincing evidence that the ordinary meaning of ‘selectively couples’ requires a direct or physical connection.”); Bradford Co. v. ConteyorN. Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he district court erroneously construed the term ‘coupled to,’ and we hold that the term should be construed broadly so as to allow an indirect attachment.”). 6 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 35 as obvious over (1) Martin, Thomsen, and Ghaem, and (2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent. D) Martin & Others (Claim 36) Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and further recites “first, second and third communications protocols comprise the group of: GPS, GSM DCS and GSM PCS.” The Examiner concludes “a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations,” and therefore finds Martin teaching W-CDMA protocols is sufficient. Ans. 33. We do not agree that specific communication protocols in claim 36 are only an “intended use.” Although other prior art may be able to demonstrate the obviousness of a protocol such as GPS or GSM PCS, the Examiner’s reliance on W-CDMA protocols here fails to make a prima facie case. Accordingly, given the record before us, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36 as obvious over (1) Martin, Thomsen, and Ghaem, and (2) Martin, Thomsen, and Dent. Double Patenting A) Claims 21—34 Independent claim 21 recites “a first low noise amplifier coupling said first matching network to a first high performance filter” and “a second low noise amplifier coupling said second matching network to said high performance filter.'1'’ 7 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 However, we agree with Appellants that in claims 12—16 of US 7,680,477, “there is no requirement that the second amplifier be coupled to any ‘filter’ much less the same high performance filter that is coupled to the first matching network.” App. Br. 42. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 21 or dependent claims 22—34 for double patenting. B) Claims 36 40 We note independent claim 37 does not require the second amplifier to be coupled to any filter and thus the argument above would not apply. However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided any claim chart or analysis for claim 37 aside from the conclusion “claims 21-40 are made obvious by claims 12-16 of US 7,680,477.” Ans. 37 (emphasis omitted); App. Br. 43. Claim 36, which depends from claim 35, also was not separately analyzed for double patenting. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 36— 40 for double patenting. C) Claim 35 For independent claim 35, Appellants rely on “the same arguments” as used against independent claim 21. Reply Br. 13. However, claim 35 does not require the second amplifier to be coupled to any filter, so that argument is moot. See App. Br. 42. Appellants also argue against claim 21 (and by extension claim 35) because “[i]n claim 12 of US 7,680,477, it is the tunable LC filter that couples the amplifier to the mixer, whereas in pending Claim 21, it is the first low noise amplifier that couples the first matching network to the high 8 Appeal 2014-000008 Application 12/613,402 performance filter.” App. Br. 41. However, Appellants fail to adequately explain any conflict in these teachings. We agree with the Examiner that claim 12 of US 7,680,477 requires “an amplifier coupled to the matching network” and “a tunable LC filter having an input coupled to an output of the amplifier and an output coupled to a mixer.” Ans. 36. Thus, the system couples (1) a matching network, (2) an amplifier, (3) a filter, and (4) a mixer, exactly as in the present application. Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner’s finding this renders obvious claim 35 of the present application. We also note Appellants have not identified any way the level of ordinary skill in the art or secondary considerations affect the obviousness of claim 35 given the unambiguous teachings of US 7,680,477. See App. Br. 38-39; Reply Br. 13-16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 for double patenting. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 35 for obviousness and double patenting. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—34 and 36-40 for obviousness and double patenting. No time period for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation