THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2021

2020000505 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021)

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.
15/300,556 09/29/2016 Michael FLYNN 2115-006100-US-NPB 5037
27572 7590 05/18/2021
HARNESS DICKEY (TROY)
5445 Corporate Dr.
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2021 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):
sto-ptomail@hdp.com
troymailroom@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL FLYNN, JAEHUN JEONG,
and NICHOLAS COLLINS

Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556
Technology Center 2600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “The
Regents of The University of Michigan.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention “relates to a narrowband bit-stream beam-
former with an integrated array of bandpass sigma-delta modulators.”
Spec ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of argued subject
matter.
1. A method for digital beamforming, comprising:
receiving, by an array of sigma delta modulators, a plurality of
analog radio frequency (RF) signals from an RF front-end,
where the plurality of analog RF signals are bandpass;
converting, by the array of sigma delta modulators, each of the
analog RF signals into a corresponding digital signal using
sigma-delta modulation;
bit-stream processing, by a bit stream processor, the digital
signals received directly from the array of sigma delta
modulators, the bit-stream processing includes down mixing
each digital signal using a first multiplication operation and
phase shifting each multiplied digital signal by weighting the
respective multiplied digital signal using a second
multiplication operation; and
summing, by the bit stream processor, each of the bit-stream
processed digital signals to form a resultant signal.
Appeal Br. 20.
Rejections
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

3
Claims 1, 2,2 and 4–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lie (Ultrasonic Beamforming with Delta-Sigma
Modulators, Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on
CIRCUITS 344–349 (July 10–12, 2006)) Reddy (US 2011/0105068 A1,
published May 5, 2011), and Green (US 6,225,928 B1, issued May 1, 2001).
Final Act. 5–9.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lie, Reddy, Green, and Khoury (US 5,917,440, issued June 29, 1999).
Final Act. 9.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lie, Reddy, Green, Dong (US 2007/0083112 A1,
published April 12, 2007), and Detering (US 4,028,609, issued June 7,
1977). Final Act. 10.
Claims 9–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lie, Reddy, Green, Hwang (US 2002/0021165 A1,
published February 21, 2002), Dong, and Detering. Final Act. 11–15.
OPINION
Written Description
Claims 1–20 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as lacking a
written description. Final Act. 4. Appellant addresses only claim 1 with
particularity. Appeal Br. 10–11. We are unpersuaded of error in this
rejection of claim 1 and thus sustain this rejection for claims 1–20.
The at-issue recitation of claim 1 is as follows: “receiving, by an
array of sigma delta modulators, a plurality of analog radio frequency (RF)

2 The statement of rejection omits claim 2. Final Act. 5. However, claim 2
is addressed in the body of the rejection. Id. at 7–8.
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

4
signals from an RF front-end, where the plurality of analog RF signals are
bandpass[.]” Appeal Br. 20.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites the sigma delta
modulators as receiving bandpass RF signals and the Specification’s
paragraph 33—cited by Appellant as support (see next paragraph)—rather
describes the SD modulators as converting received RF signals into
bandpass RF signals. Ans. 5 (“[A]ppellant [states] the sigma delta
modulator can be implemented as a continuous bandpass filter . . . [and]
configured to receive intermediate frequency (IF) or Radio Frequency (RF)
signals directly from . . . an RF front-end. It [is] never said that [a received]
RF [signal] is [a] bandpass [signal].”).
Appellant contends: “Intermediate frequency (IF) signals in the
context of RF beamforming are readily understood . . . to be bandpass. The
specification . . . indicates [the sigma delta modulator] receiving
intermediate frequency analog signals from an RF front-end . . . in [the
Specification’s] paragraph [0033].” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2
(“Intermediate frequency (IF) signals in the context of RF beamforming are
readily understood by those skilled in the art to be bandpass.”). We are
unpersuaded because the argument rests upon the unsupported assertion that
IF signals for RF beamforming were understood to be bandpass signals. Id.
Such mere attorney argument is not persuasive. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from
common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual
evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
Appellant also contends the Examiner has corroborated the above
contention (IF signals for RF beamforming are known to be bandpass
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

5
signals) by finding “Green teaches . . . delta-sigma conversion . . . [is]
possible . . . [where] the signal of interest is centered around some
intermediate frequency (IF) . . . and a bandpass converter is desirable for
conversion of the IF signal to digital format.” Appeal Br. 10 (quoting
Final Act. 13). We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because the
Examiner’s finding is that some analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) were
known to receive an analog IF signal and bandpass-convert it into a digital
signal centered around a particular frequency. Final Act. 13 (“In many radio
systems for example, the signal of interest is centered around some
intermediate frequency (IF) which is distant from DC, and a bandpass
converter is desirable for conversion of the IF signal to digital format.”).
This is not a finding that “IF signals” were understood to be “bandpass
signals.”3
Obviousness
Claim 1 stands rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being obvious over
Lie, Reddy, and Green. Final Act. 5–7. We are unpersuaded of error in this
rejection of claim 1 and thus sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2–20, which Appellant does not argue with any particularity.

3 We add that a technical dictionary indicates IF signals are not necessarily
bandpassed signals. See, e.g., INTERMEDIATE FREQUENCY (IF)
(“A frequency to which a signal wave is shifted locally as an intermediate
step in transmission or reception. . . . The frequency resulting from a
frequency conversion that is amplified locally in the receiver before
demodulation.”); compare, e.g., BANDPASS. The Authoritative Dictionary
of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000) (“A range of frequencies
that express the difference between the lowest and highest frequencies of
interest.”).
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

6
“[Appellant’s] first argument rests upon the fundamental truth that
baseband time delay does not work for bandpass signals.” Appeal Br. 12;
see also id. at 12–14 (explaining this proffered understanding in the art).
This alleged “fundamental truth” lacks supporting presented evidence
(e.g., a declaration) and is thus unpersuasive. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470
(parenthetical quote at supra 4).
Appellant also contends “Reddy teaches multiple receivers operating
in parallel to receive different non-contiguous bands of spectrum from the
same antenna or RF input . . . [and t]his is fundamentally different from
beamforming, which processes the same RF frequency band from multiple
antennas at different physical locations.” Appeal Br. 14; see also id. at 14–
15 (asserting this proffered understanding of beamforming renders Reddy
non-analogous art). This alleged “fundamental difference” lacks supporting
presented evidence and is thus unpersuasive. See Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470
(parenthetical quote at supra 4).
Appellant also contends:
[T]he examiner merely states that it would be obvious to
“lower the frequency of the received signal . . . in order to
. . . alleviate the requirement . . . for filtering the digital signal”
(see pg. 7 of the Final Office Action). [This] fails to state a
particular rationale[.] Moreover, the stated rationale . . . does
not seem to make sense because . . . [b]oth [Reddy and Lie]
show filtering[. A]nd so[,] it is unclear how filtering is being
alleviated by combining the teachings of Reddy with Lie.
Appeal Br. 15. We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner determines:
Lie teaches an ADC; Reddy teaches a filter that receives a digital signal
from an ADC and, before the filter operation, frequency down-converts the
signal to accommodate (i.e., allow for) for a simpler filter; these teachings
show it would have been obvious to modify Lie’s invention such that the
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

7
ADC’s digital signal (output) is frequency down-converted and then filtered.
Ans. 8; see also id. at 7 (explaining the Examiner’s reliance on Lie, Reddy,
and Green). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s above
rationale to modify Lee in view of Reddy does “make sense” and provides a
“particular rationale” (Appeal Br. 15)—the modification accommodates a
simpler filter (Ans. 8).
Appellant also contends: “The current rejections fail to adequately
explain how the acoustic beamforming process of Lie is modified in order to
achieve applicant’s claimed beamforming process.” Appeal Br. 16. We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error. By reading the claimed summation and
prior bit-stream process on Lie’s Figures 4 and 7 as modified in view of
Reddy, the Examiner is reading the claimed summation on the adder of
Figures 4 and 7. Final Act. 7. In turn, the Examiner places the proposed
frequency down-conversion and phase-shift immediately before the adder.
And, because Lie’s adder immediately precedes the filter (Lee Figs. 4, 7),
this order adheres to the Examiner’s rationale of adding frequency
down-conversion and phase-shifting before the filtering to allow for a
simpler filter. See Ans. 8.
Appellant also describes Green and then contends “[it] does not cure
the deficiencies of Reddy and Lie discussed above.” Appeal Br. 16. As
discussed, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Reddy
and Lie. We are thus unpersuaded by Appellant’s discussion of Green.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well
as, claims 2–20 not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-000505
Application 15/300,556

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112(a) written description 1–20
1, 2, 4–6 103 Lie, Reddy, and Green 1, 2, 4–6
3 103 Lie, Reddy, Green, Khoury 3
7, 8 103 Lie, Reddy, Green, Dong, Detering 7, 8
9–20 103
Lie, Reddy, Green,
Hwang, Dong,
Detering
9–20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this Appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED