Ex Parte Charlon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2015

11817792 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111817,792 06/12/2009
65913 7590 12/11/2015
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Olivier Charlon
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.
US05 0086 US2 6732
EXAMINER
LU,ZHIYU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2015 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 OLIVIER CHARLON
Appeal2014-001910
Application 11/817, 792
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-001910
Application 11/817, 792
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3-22, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for tuning a filter in a transceiver comprising the steps of:
generating a plurality of tones;
filtering said plurality of tones using a transmit filter to generate a first
filtered signal;
looping said first filtered signal from an output of the transmit filter to
an input of a receive filter without up-conversion or down-conversion of the
first filtered signal;
filtering said first filtered signal using the receive filter to generate a
second filtered signal;
determining an attenuation associated with said plurality of tones in
said second filtered signal; and
selectively tuning at least one of said transmit filter and said receive
filter based on said attenuation.
Prior Art
Atari us US 2002/0147014 Al Oct. 10, 2002
Josselson US 2003/0176983 Al Sep. 18,2003
Ibrahim US 2005/0040831 Al Feb.24,2005
Gannholm US 2005/0164648 Al Jul. 28, 2005
Nakayama JP 05-145499 June 11, 1993
2
Appeal 2014-001910
Application 11/817, 792
Examiner ;s Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Gannholm and Nakayama.
Claims 11-14 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gannholm, Ibrahim, and Nakayama.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gannholm, Nakayama, and Josselson.
Claims 15 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gannholm, Ibrahim, Nakayama, and Josselson.
Claims 6-9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gannholm, Nakayama, and Atarius.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gannholm, Nakayama, Atarius, and Josselson.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gannholm, Nakayama, and Ibrahim.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight Appellant's rebuttal arguments from the
Reply Brief for emphasis.
Appellant contends the Examiner's Answer does not provide a valid
rationale for the proposed combination, because Gannholm alone provides a
solution to the problem. Reply Br. 2. To the extent Appellant's contention
is based on the premise that Gannholm alone teaches the limitations of claim
3
Appeal 2014-001910
Application 11/817, 792
1, Appellant has not identified error in the Examiner's rejection. For
example, Figure 15 of Gannholm teaches filtering tones from a transmit
filter 23, looping the filtered signal from an output of the transmit filter 57 to
an input of the receive filter 68 without up or down conversion, and filtering
the signal using the receive filter 26. Corresponding paragraphs 56 through
68 of Gannholm teach determining attenuation from the filtered signal and
tuning at least one filter based on the attenuation. See also Ans. 12
("Gannholm introduces plurality of switchable loop back connections ( 51-57
of Fig. 1, at [the] output of each component) between the transmitter chain
and receiver chain.").
Similarly, Figure 1 of Nakayama shows sending the output of
baseband transmitter filter 11 input to receiver baseband filter 14 through
feedback connection 41 to determine appropriate tuning, which "is a
structural teaching of appellant's claim 1" (Ans. 13). Appellant has not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's findings.
Appellant contends the prior art is not enabling. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's contention is inconsistent with Figures 1 and 15 of Gannholm,
and Figure 1 of Nakayama, which each show the output of a transmitter
filter looping to the input of a receiver filter. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding (see Ans. 13) that
adding a feedback connection from the output of a transmitter filter to the
input of a receiver filter as taught by both Gannholm and Nakayama was
within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Appellant shown that
adding a feedback connection requires undue experimentation.
Appellant contends performing the filtering in a frequency band for
WiFi transmission as required by claims 11-15, 21, and 22, is not suggested
4
Appeal 2014-001910
Application 11/817, 792
by Figure 18 of Gannhohn. Reply Br. 3-5. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence to show tuning the circuit of Figure 18 of Gannhohn to
a WiFi frequency band was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S.398,419(2007D.
Appellant contends that the prior art does not suggest "wherein said
plurality of tones have different amplitudes" as recited in claim 5. Reply Br.
5-7. Appellant's contention is inconsistent with paragraph 14 of J osselson,
which teaches "different test signal amplitudes to be used for each band."
We sustain the rejections of claims 1 and 3-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
dw
5