Ex Parte Braswell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

13480977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/480,977 05/25/2012
23125 7590 04/03/2018
NXP USA, Inc.
LAW DEPARTMENT
6501 William Cannon Drive West TX30/0E62
AUSTIN, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brandt Braswell
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.
AI20031ZC-US01 1988
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANDT BRASWELL, DOUGLAS A. GARRITY, and
MOHAMMAD NIZAM U. KABIR
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
Technology Center 3600
Before KEN B. BARRETT, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARNER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Brandt Braswell et al. ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20, which are all
the pending claims. See Appeal Br. 12-16. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Freescale
Semiconductor, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' disclosed invention "relate[s] generally to vehicle-borne
radar systems that include analog-to-digital converters, and methods of their
operation." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the subject matter
on appeal.
1. A vehicle-borne radar system comprising:
a transmit path capable of producing a signal for
transmission over an air interface;
a first receive path with a first continuous-time (CT)
sigma delta analog-to-digital converter (ADC), wherein the
first receive path is capable of receiving a reflected version of
the signal from the air interface, and converting the reflected
version along the first receive path into a sequence of digital
samples using the first CT sigma delta ADC, wherein the CT
sigma delta ADC comprises
a forward path that includes a first node, multiple
integration stages coupled in series to the first node, a
sampling node coupled to an output of the multiple
integration stages, and a quantizer having a quantizer
output and a quantizer input coupled to the sampling
node, and
a feedback path coupled between the quantizer
output and the first node, wherein a fed back signal from
the quantizer output is subtracted from the reflected
version at the first node in order to shape a quantization
noise floor so that quantization noise is smaller within a
band of interest and larger outside of the band of interest;
and
a radar processor coupled to the quantizer output and
configured to receive and analyze the digital samples to
determine characteristics of objects external to a vehicle to
which the vehicle-borne radar system is coupled, and
wherein the CT sigma delta ADC and the radar
processor are integrated onto a single integrated circuit.
2
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Cheng US 6,396,428 B 1 May 28, 2002
Stopczynski US 2005/0033497 Al Feb. 10,2005
Jensen US 2005/0068212 Al Mar. 31, 2005
Brosche2 DE 10 2009 029 051 Al Mar. 3, 2011
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1--4, 6-13, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen and Brosche. Final
Act. 2-7.
II. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jensen, Brosche, and Cheng. Id. at 8.
III. Claims 14--16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jensen, Brosche, and Stopczynski. Id.
2 We note that the record includes the corresponding U.S. application
(published as US 2012/0200453 Al on Aug. 9, 2012) as an English language
translation of this German published application, and we further note that,
although the rejections are based on Brosche, the citations thereto appear to
refer to the U.S. publication. See Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 9-10; see also Appeal
Br. 12 (Appellants noting the same).
3
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
ANALYSIS
Rejection I- Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 17-20 as unpatentable over
Jensen and Brosche
The Examiner determined that a combination of teachings from
Jensen and Brosche renders obvious the subject matter claimed. See Final
Act. 2-7. Appellants argue that the cited references "fail to disclose each
and every feature" of the claims. Appeal Br. 14; see id. at 12-15. After
careful consideration of the record before us, Appellants' arguments do not
apprise us of error in the Examiner's factual findings from Jensen or
Brosche, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, or the
Examiner's reasonable conclusion of obviousness, which is rationally
articulated based on prior art teachings. In short, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection based on the reasoned position set forth therein and in light of the
Examiner's thorough responses to Appellants' arguments. See Final
Act. 2-7; Ans. 8-10.
In particular, Appellants assert that Brosche "does not use a
continuous-time sigma delta ADC," but instead uses "discrete time ADCs."
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). This assertion is misplaced and does not
apprise us of error because the Examiner relied on Jensen, not Brosche, for
teaching use of a continuous-time sigma delta ADC. See Ans. 8-9 (citing
Brosche i-fi-f 14--15); see also Final Act. 2-3 (citing same). Thus, Appellants'
argument is not responsive to the rejection presented, and is therefore
unpersuasive.
Appellants also argue that the references "fail to disclose a system in
which an ADC and a radar processor are integrated onto a single integrated
circuit." Appeal Br. 14; see id. at 14--15. This argument is premised on the
4
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
position that the Examiner's citation to Figure 8 of Jensen in the rejection
(Final Act. 3), as "merely showing block diagram elements within a same
box" (Appeal Br. 14) is insufficient to demonstrate that those elements are
"integrated onto a single integrated circuit" (id.). As a preliminary matter,
we note that Figure 2 of the present application (depicting ADC 228 and
radar processor 240) and Figure 8 of Jensen (cited by the Examiner as
depicting ADC 66 and processor 64) both appear to show the elements
within a single box, presumably sufficient to support them being on an
integrated circuit. Further, in response to Appellants' argument, the
Examiner cites to Paragraph 67 of Jensen, which expressly discloses that
radio 60 (shown in Figure 8 as including ADC 66 and processor 64) "may be
implemented on a single integrated circuit." Ans. 10 (citing Jensen i-f 67).
Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding.
We note that any other arguments not specifically addressed in detail
herein have been thoroughly considered by the panel but are not persuasive
for the reasons discussed supra and those well expressed in the Examiner's
Answer.
After careful consideration of all the evidence of record, Appellants'
arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasoning
in support of the conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection.
Rejections II and III - Claims 5 and 14-16 as unpatentable over
Jensen and Brosche, with either Cheng or Stopczynski
With respect to the rejections of these claims, Appellants do not set
forth any additional substantive arguments separate from those discussed
5
Appeal2017-000300
Application 13/480,977
supra; instead, Appellants reiterate their arguments set forth in the context of
Rejection I and additionally contend that neither Cheng nor Stopczynski
makes up for "the deficiencies in Jensen and Brosche," argued with respect
to the base claims. Appeal Br. 15-16. For the reasons discussed supra, we
are unpersuaded of a deficiency with respect to the combination of Jensen
and Brosche as applied in Rejection I, such that Appellants' arguments do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner's findings or reasons in support of
the conclusion of obviousness for these rejections, which we likewise
sustain.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-13, and
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen and
Brosche.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen, Brosche, and Cheng.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14--16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jensen, Brosche, and
Stopczynski.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6