Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 16, 20212020003300 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2021) 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. 15/715,739 09/26/2017 Ronald W. Dimpflmaier P34047US1/APPL:0764 8933 73576 7590 08/16/2021 APPLE INC. - Fletcher c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER TRANDAI, CINDY HUYEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2021 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): docket@fyiplaw.com hennessey@fyiplaw.com hill@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RONALD W. DIMPFLMAIER, RASTISLAV VAZNY, and LYDI R. SMAINI1 ________________ Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13–24, and 26–29, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 7–19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Apple as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed October 7, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 2. 2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed April 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 30, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: The present disclosure relates to radiofrequency (RF) communications systems that may operate efficiently over a broad range of signal output levels. Electronic devices may employ amplification circuitry in the communication RF systems to provide output signal power. For example, amplification provided by external power amplifiers disposed in front-end modules may be more efficient at a higher range of output signal power, but may be inefficient at a lower range of output signal power. The disclosure relates to architectures for RF communication systems having transceivers and front-end modules that may provide power-efficient over broad ranges. Front-end modules may, for example, be managed to disable and/or enable external power amplifiers based of the output signal power. Transceivers may, for example, include internal power amplifier which may provide amplification for low output signals, and may operate as a driver to the external power amplifier of the front-end module for high output signals. Methods for managing the circuitry are also discussed. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the appealed claims: 1. An electrical device comprising: a radio frequency (RF) transceiver comprising an internal power amplifier coupled to a transmit (TX) port of the RF transceiver; a front-end module comprising: a power amplifier coupled to the TX port of the RF transceiver, wherein the front-end module is configured to couple to an antenna that transmits an output RF signal; switching circuitry configured to bypass the power amplifier of the front-end module; and Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 3 a controller configured to select a mode of operation from a set of modes of operation comprising: an internal power amplifier mode, wherein the power amplifier of the front-end module is disabled and the transceiver is configured to increase a gain of the internal power amplifier in response to an increase in a demand of a power of the output RF signal; and a front-end power amplifier mode, wherein the power amplifier of the front-end module is dynamically adjusted based on an envelope of the output RF signal. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (pre-AIA 112, ¶ 1) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 2, 11, 13, 17–20, 23, 24, and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2012/0056677 A1; published Mar. 8, 2012), He (US 2011/0021237 A1; published Jan. 27, 2011), and Ando (US 2005/0156669 A1; published July 21, 2005). Final Act. 3–7. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Duncan (US 2018/0034416 A1; published Feb. 1, 2018). Final Act. 7–8. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Hou (US 2017/0163298 A1; published June 8, 2017). Final Act. 8. Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 4 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Lam (US 10,111,115 B2; issued Oct. 23, 2018). Final Act. 9. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Cho (US 6,397,090 B1; issued May 28, 2002). Final Act. 9–10. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Jin (US 2016/0226552 A1; published Aug. 4, 2016). Final Act. 10. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Khesbak (US 2018/0076772 A1; published Mar. 15, 2018). Final Act. 11. Claims 16 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Vaillancourt (US 2016/0276983 A1; published Sept. 22, 2016). Final Act. 11–12. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Narathong (US 2015/0373711 A1; published Dec. 24, 2015). Final Act. 13. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, He, Ando, and Sridhar (US 2014/0177037 A1; published June 26, 2014). Final Act. 13–14. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 5 light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION The Examiner’s Determinations and Appellant’s Contentions Claim 29 recites, “[t]he method of claim 17, wherein the front-end module provides unity gain in the lower power specification mode.” Appeal Br. 24. The Examiner rejects claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor regards as the invention. Final Act. 3. More specifically, the Examiner determines that the term “unity gain” does not appear in Appellant’s originally filed Specification, and “there is confusion in how the font end module can provide unity gain in the lower power specification, when there is no mention of what [the term] really means.” Ans. 10. The Examiner determines, then, that the term is vague and unclear. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10. Appellant argues, “the term ‘unity gain’ is well-understood to mean that an input voltage and an output voltage are the same (e.g., such that the gain factor equals 1.)” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant cites external evidence to support that this term was well-understood. Id. (citing a Wikipedia page on electronic gain); see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(electronics). Analysis The cited Wikipedia page states, “[a] gain of factor 1 (equivalent to 0 dB) where both input and output are at the same voltage level and impedance is also known as unity gain.” Wikipedia, Gain (electronics) I Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 6 (available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(electronics)). As such, Appellant provides at least some modicum of evidence to support the position that the term “unity gain” has a well-understood meaning. Appeal Br. 8. And the Examiner provides no evidence to support the opposite conclusion that term is vague and unclear. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10. The Examiner only finds that the term is not set forth or described in Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 10. But this fact is, at most, evidence that the term is not understood by the Examiner—not that the term was unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we reverse the indefiniteness rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). THE WRITTEN-DESCRIPTION REJECTION The Examiner’s Determinations The Examiner finds that Appellant’s originally filed Specification does not set forth or describe the term “unity gain,” which appears in later- added claim 29. Final Act. 2. As such, the Examiner determines that the originally filed Specification does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Id. Appellant does not assert in its principle Brief that the Specification either sets forth the term “unity gain” or describes the concept. Appeal Br. 8. Rather, Appellant only argues that the term is well-known and that one skilled in the art “would understand that the front-end module of claim 29 provides an output voltage equal to an input voltage in the lower power specification mode.” Id. (citing the above-noted Wikipedia page). Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 7 Appellant subsequently cites the following passage of the originally filed Specification for support of the disputed term: The use of semiconductor based internal power amplifiers (iPAs), as well as the architecture that includes the switching circuitry 440, the single-stage PA 426 may lead to a reduced power consumption over a broad range, when compared to an RF system such as that illustrated in FIG. 7 or 9, while allowing substantial signal power, in contrast with a system such as that illustrated in FIG. 10. This performance change is illustrated in chart 470 in FIG. 12. Chart 470 illustrates the power consumption 172 in function of the output antenna power 174 for a multi-stage power amplifier system (curve 476) and an internal power amplifier system (curve 478). Note that throughout the operating range of the system, an internal power amplifier system may provide better power consumption 172 performance than the multi-stage power amplifier system. In the lower range 480 for output antenna power 174, RF system 400 may operate in an internal power amplifier mode (e.g., iPA mode), in which the internal power amplifier provides the signal application, bypassing the single-stage amplifier. By deactivating and bypassing the power amplifier in the front-end module, system 450 may reduce the baseline power consumption, in contrast with the fixed voltage mode employed by an RF system 100, as discussed above. At a moderate output antenna power 174 (region 481), the internal power amplifier may aggressively scale power consumption, without resorting to an average power tracking mode, and thus, the power amplifier in the front-end module may remain deactivated. Reply Br. 2–3 (citing Spec ¶ 46; Figs. 11, 12). Analysis Appellant’s citation to the Wikipedia page evidences that the meaning of “unity gain” was understood one of ordinary skill, but it does not provide evidence that Appellant’s Specification reasonably conveys to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 8 Appellant’s Figure 12, though, depicts a power curve 478 for an internal power amplification system wherein the curve passes through a point on the x-axis where the antenna power is 0 dBm. We understand Figure 12 to depict, then, a point at which the front end module provides a unity gain. Accordingly, we reverse the written-description rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS The Examiner’s Determinations The Examiner finds that Zhu discloses most of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the disclosed internal power amplifier and the power amplifier are “coupled to a transmit (TX) port of the RF transceiver,” as claimed. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that He teaches this feature and that motivation existed to combine He’s teachings with those of Zhu. Id. at 4. The Examiner further finds, “the combination of Zhu and He fails to mention the transceiver is configured to increase a gain of the internal power amplifier in response to an increase in a demand of a power of the output RF signal.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Ando teaches this feather and that motivation existed to combine Ando’s teachings with those of Zhu and He. Id. at 4–5. Appellant’s Arguments and Analysis (I) Appellant first argues that the cited combination of Zhu, He, and Ando fails to teach or suggest “a radio frequency (RF) transceiver Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 9 comprising an internal power amplifier coupled to the TX port of the RF transceiver” and “a front-end module comprising: a power amplifier . . . switching circuitry configured to bypass the power amplifier or the front-end module.” Appeal Br. 9. According to Appellant, Zhu teaches a radio frequency transceiver 110 having a power amplifier module 107 that includes two power amplifiers 205 and 210, and a bypass switch 235 that may switch off the power amplifier 210 of the radio frequency transceiver 110. However, Zhu is silent regarding a front-end module coupled to the radio frequency transceiver 110, much less a front-end module having the power amplifier 210 and the bypass switch 235. Id. (citing Zhu ¶ 51). Appellant questions whether the Examiner is interpreting the power amplifier 205 as teaching the claimed radio frequency transceiver. Appeal Br. 10, n.1. Appellant further argues, “because the power amplifier module [of Zhu] is wholly contained within the radio frequency transceiver 110, the power amplifiers 205, 210 and the bypass switch 235 are also part of the radio frequency transceiver 110.” Id. at 11. Appellant alternatively agues, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Examiner contends that the radio frequency transceiver 110 of Zhu teaches the front end module recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 17, and that the transmit (TX) processing circuitry 115 and the receive (RX) processing circuitry 125 of Zhu teaches the radio frequency transceiver recited by the independent claims, the Appellant notes that Zhu is silent regarding either the transmit processing circuitry 115 or the receive processing circuitry 125 having an internal power amplifier. . . . As such, even under these hypothetical circumstances, Zhu is silent as to teaching a radio frequency transceiver having an internal power amplifier, as generally recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 17. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Zhu ¶ 11). Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 10 Appellant’s arguments imply that one of ordinary skill would understand a radio frequency transceiver and a front-end module to necessarily be non-overlapping, distinct components of the receiver. But Appellant provides no evidence to support this position. See generally Appeal Br. Instead, extrinsic evidence indicates that the term “front end module” is used in various manners, sometimes intended to encompass power amplifiers, and sometimes intended to encompass all or some of the RF antenna circuitry. See, e.g., Arrow, RF Front End (available at https:// www.arrow.com/en/categories/rf-and-microwave/rf-ics/rf-front-end) (“An RF front end is a device or module that incorporates all the circuity between the antenna and at least one mixing stage of a receiver and possible the power amplifier of the transmitter.”); Carr, The Technician’s Radio Receiver Handbook: Wireless and Telecommunication Technology, 2001 at 23 (“The ‘front end’ of a modern superheterodyne radio receiver is the circuitry between the antenna input terminal and the output of the first mixer stage.”) (available at https://books.google.com/books?id=PNnJnWMQCNkC&pg= PA23&dq=%22front+end#v=onepage&q=%22front%20end&f=false) (hereafter “Carr”); Wikipedia, RF front end (citing Carr) (“the RF front end is a generic term for all the circuitry between a receiver’s antenna input up to and including the mixer stage.”) (available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ RF_front_end). Based on these varying definitions, we understand it to be merely a semantic distinction, as opposed to a structural distinction, to characterize an RF receiver’s antenna circuitry as being either part of or alternatively separate from the front-end unit. Restated, notwithstanding the fact that Zhu Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 11 characterizes the power amplifier module 200 of Figure 2 as being part of the RF transceiver 110 (see Zhu Fig. 1), one of ordinary skill would have found it reasonable to interpret the input/output terminals of first interface 250, along with the power amplifier 205, as reading on “a radio frequency (RF) transceiver comprising an internal power amplifier coupled to a transmit (TX) port of the RF transceiver,” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1. One of ordinary skill further would have found it reasonable to interpret Zhu’s power amplifier 210, bypass switch 235, and controller 215 as reading on the power amplifier, switching circuitry, and controller of the front-end module, as recited in claim 1. (II) Appellant argues that the combination of “Zhu, He, and Ando fail to teach 1) an internal power amplifier of a radio frequency transceiver and 2) a power amplifier of a front-end module, that are both coupled to a transmit port of the radio frequency transceiver, as generally received by independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12. More specifically, Appellant notes the Examiner takes the position that Zhu fails to teach this claimed feature and instead relies on He for teaching the feature. Id. Appellant then presents arguments for why He fails to teach its front end module 162 having an amplifier. Id. Appellant does not persuade us that the cited combination fails to teach the disputed claim language because Zhu, itself, teaches the language. As noted in the previous section of this Opinion, Zhu’s power amplifiers 205 and 210 respectively read on the claimed internal power amplifier of the transceiver and power amplifier of a front-end module. Furthermore, Zhu’s Figure 2 depicts first interface 250 of the transceiver 110 as including output Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 12 terminals 265 that are coupled by a switch to the power amplifiers 205, 210. Zhu Fig. 2; see also, e.g., id. ¶ 39. (III) Appellant argues that the cited combination of “Zhu, He, and Ando fail to teach disabling the power amplifier of the front-end module in response to an increase in a demand of a power of an output radio frequency signal, as generally recited by independent claims 1 and 11.” Appeal Br. 14. More specifically, Appellant argues, “the cited portions of Zhu appear to teach closing the bypass switch 235 taught in Zhu ‘[o]nce the output power level drops below a certain value . . . when the output power is in the fourth range of values.’” Id. (citing Zhu ¶ 51). But according to Appellant, Zhu is silent regarding closing the bypass switch 235 in response to an increase in a demand of a power of an output radio frequency signal.” Id. at 14–15. This argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 1 does not recite closing a bypass switch to bypass the power amplifier of the front end module in response to an increase in a demand of a power of the output RF signal, as Appellant alleges. Claim 1, instead, recites “an internal power amplifier mode, wherein the power amplifier of the front-end module is disabled and the transceiver is configured to increase a gain of the internal power amplifier in response to an increase in a demand of a power of the output RF signal.” That is, claim 1 only requires that the gain of the internal power amplifier be increased “in response to an increase in a demand of a power of the output RF signal.” Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 13 (IV) Appellant argues that the cited combination does not teach a single- stage amplifier in the front-end module, as recited by claims 11, 26, and 28. Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on He teaches this claim element (id. at 15 (citing Final Act. 4)), but that the front end module of He’s Figure 1 fails to tech a single-stage amplifier. Id. at 15–16. This argument is unpersuasive because regardless of whether He does or does not teach a single-stage amplifier in the front-end module, Zhu does teach a single-state amplifier. As stated previously, the power amplifier 210 of Zhu’s Figure 2 reads on the amplifier of the front-end module, as claimed. Moreover, Zhu at least depicts the amplifier as being a single-stage amplifier. Compare Zhu Fig. 2 (schematically depicting power amplifier 210 as a single triangle or single-stage amplifier) with Appellant’s Figure 9 (depicting the power amplifier 126 as a plurality of triangles, representing a multi-stage amplifier). This distinction in the depictions of amplifiers provides evidence that one of ordinary skill would understand that Zhu’s depiction of a single triangle indicates, or at least renders obvious, that the amplifier is or could be a single-stage amplifier. Conclusions For the foregoing reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims and of claims 2, 13, 18–20, 23, 24, and 26–28, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 16. With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 6–10, 14– 16, 21, 22, and 29, Appellant does not present separate arguments regarding Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 14 the additionally cited references. Appeal Br. 16–19. Appellant merely argues the patentability of these claims based on their dependency from the independent claims. Id. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 29 112(a) Written Description 29 29 112(b) Indefiniteness 29 1, 2, 11, 13, 17– 20, 23, 24, 26– 28 103 Zhu, He, Ando 1, 2, 11, 13, 17–20, 23, 24, 26–28 6 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Duncan 6 7 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Hou 7 8 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Lam 8 9 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Cho 9 10 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Jin 10 14, 15 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Khesbak 14, 15 16, 22 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Vaillancourt 16, 22 21 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Narathong 21 29 103 Zhu, He, Ando, Sridhar 29 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 6–11, 13–24, 26– 29 Appeal 2020-003300 Application 15/715,739 15 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation