Ex Parte Bellaouar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13886310 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017)

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.
13/886,310 05/03/2013 Abdellatif Bellaouar IR-12-0786-US1 1039
102469 7590 09/21/2017
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
SANDIFORD, DEVAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABDELLATIF BELLAOUAR, FRANK ZHANG,
and ESSAM AT ALLA
Appeal 2017-006231
Application 13/886,310
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Aparin (US 2014/0170999 Al; Jun. 19,
2014). Final Act. 5-10.
Appeal 2017-006231
Application 13/886,310
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Aparin and Holenstein (US 2014/0213209 Al; Jul. 31, 2014).
Final Act. 10—13.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a receiver front-end, a method of
operating a receiver front-end and a receiver front-end system.” Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A receiver front-end, comprising:
a receive path configured to receive an input signal; and
a low noise amplifier having a common input stage and multiple
separate output stages, wherein each separate output stage is configured to
be separately activated and connected to a receive signal mixer that provides
signal demodulation of the input signal employing one of an aggregation of
receiver carriers.
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1,2,4,5,7-9,11,12,14,15,17,
18, and 20 by Aparin
The Examiner finds Aparin describes all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 7—16.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Here, the relied upon paragraphs of Aparin do not
disclose that the relied upon down-converters 554a and 554b
are identical to the claimed mixer. As recited in the above
limitation, the claimed mixer provides signal demodulation by
2
Appeal 2017-006231
Application 13/886,310
employing an aggregation of receiver carriers. The relied upon
down-converters, however, do not provide demodulation.
Instead, the relied upon down-converters merely provides
down-conversion of the input signals. Demodulating and
decoding mentioned in the above assertion of the Examiner
appear to be provided by the data processor such as 380.
Moreover, Aparin’s down-conversion is provided with inphase
and quadrature signals from a local oscillator, instead of one of
the aggregation of receiver carriers employed by the claimed
mixer. Thus, Aparin as relied upon fails to disclose “each
separate output stage is configured to be ... connected to a
receive signal mixer that provides signal demodulation of the
input signal employing one of an aggregation of receiver
carriers” as recited in Claim 1.
Br. 6.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
The Examiner finds Aparin describes (claim 1) “a low noise amplifier
having a common input stage and multiple separate output stages, wherein
each separate output stage is configured to be separately activated and
connected to a receive signal mixer that provides signal demodulation of the
input signal employing one of an aggregation of receiver carriers.” Final
Act. 5—6. We agree with and adopt this finding as our own.
In particular, Aparin describes (claim 1) “a low noise amplifier” (Fig.
5A, LNA 530) “having a common input stage” (Fig. 5A, RXin) “and
multiple separate output stages” (Fig. 5A, RFampl, RFamp2), “wherein
each separate output stage is configured to be separately activated” (Fig. 7C,
transistors 746, 766) “and connected to a receive signal mixer” (Fig. 5A,
3
Appeal 2017-006231
Application 13/886,310
Downconverter 554a, Downconverter 554b) “that provides signal
demodulation of the input signal employing one of an aggregation of
receiver carriers” (Fig. 5 A, LO Generator 560a, LO Generator 560b).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, each downconverter 554a, 554b
provide demodulation (I/Q demodulation). Further, each downconverter
554a, 554b employs one (LOl or L02) of an aggregation of receiver
carriers.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7, which depend
from claim 1 and are not separately argued with particularity.
Regarding claim 8, Appellants present the principal argument as
presented for claim 1. See Br. 6—7. We, therefore, sustain Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9,
11, 12, and 14, which depend from claim 8 and are not separately argued
with particularity.
Regarding claim 15, Appellants present the principal argument as
presented for claim 1. See Br. 7—8. We, therefore, sustain Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17,
18, and 20, which depend from claim 15 and are not separately argued with
particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3,6,10,13,16, and 19 over
Aparin and Holenstein
Appellants argue Holenstein does not cure the deficiencies of Aparin.
See Br. 8—9.
4
Appeal 2017-006231
Application 13/886,310
For reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we find Aparin
does not have the deficiencies alleged by Appellants.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, 10, 13,
16, and 19.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
5