Ex Parte De Ruijter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

13244587 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/244,587 09/25/2011
21906 7590 03/04/2016
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P,C
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hendricus De Ruijter
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.
SIL.0173US (D-10-600-36) 9884
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENDRICUS DE RUIJTER, TAMAS MAROZSAK, and
PETERONODY
Appeal2014-003907 1
Application 13/244,587
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Silicon Laboratories Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003907
Application 13/244,587
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. Appeal Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to "[a]n RF receiver [that] includes
an RF signal reception path to process an input signal for the receiver for a
first mode of the receiver; an oscillator; and a harmonic generator," where
"[t]he harmonic generator generates a harmonic signal in response to
operation of the oscillator to replace the input signal with the harmonic
signal for a second mode of the receiver." Abstract. Independent claim 1 is
representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed
element:
1. A method comprising:
using a signal reception path in a radio frequency (RF)
receiver to process an input signal for the receiver for a first mode
of the receiver;
using a harmonic generator of the receiver to generate
a harmonic signal; and
using the harmonic signal to replace the input signal with
the harmonic signal for a second mode of the receiver.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2014-003907
Application 13/244,587
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7, 9-11, and 16-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Paulus et al. (US 7,676,210 B2, issued
Mar. 9, 2010). Final Act. 2.
The Examiner rejects claims 5---6, 12-14, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paulus, in view of Willingham
(US 7 ,362,826 B2, issued Apr. 22, 2008). Final Act. 5.
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 15, and 19-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paulus. Final Act. 6.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20
Appellants argue that, although Paulus discloses applying a
calibration tone to an input of an IQ mixer during a calibration mode of an
operation, Paulus fails to disclose that the calibration tone is a "harmonic
signal," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. Appellants argue that Paulus
fails to disclose also that the calibration tone is generated by a "harmonic
generator," as also recited in claim 1. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Claim 1 recites a
"harmonic signal" and "harmonic generator," but does not define or further
limit either of those terms. Appellants' specification also does not provide
an explicit definition for either a "harmonic signal" or a "harmonic
generator." The Examiner found Paulus discloses a calibration tone received
by the IQ mixer of the receiver during a calibration mode of operation, and
that in a real-world system, the calibration tone includes harmonic distortion.
Final Act. 2; Ans. 2-3. Thus, Paulus teaches a calibration tone that includes
3
Appeal2014-003907
Application 13/244,587
harmonics. While Appellants have alleged that the claimed "harmonic
signal" is distinct from Paulus's calibration tone, Appellants' fail to explain
how the two features are different or why Paulus's calibration tone does not
fall within the claimed "harmonic signal." Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the claimed "harmonic signal" encompasses Paulus's
calibration tone. The Examiner found also that Paulus discloses a
calibration tone generator that generates the calibration tone. Final Act. 2;
Ans. 2-3. Appellant's argument fails to explain persuasively why the
claimed "harmonic generator" would not include Paulus's calibration tone
generator. We agree with the Examiner that it does.
Appellants next argue that, even assuming Paulus's calibration tone is
a harmonic signal, Paulus fails to disclose that the calibration tone is
generated by a harmonic generator of Paulus's RF receiver. Appeal Br. 12.
In other words, according to Appellants, Paulus discloses that the calibration
tone is received by the RF receiver, but fails to disclose that the calibration
tone is generated by a generator that is part of the RF receiver. Id. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As the Examiner noted, Paulus
characterizes the receiver system 15 of Fig. 1 as "a receiver system
configured to provide a calibration tone." Ans. 3 (quoting Paulus 17:32).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Paulus's calibration tone generator is
part of the RF receiver. 2 Ans. 3.
2 Additionally, Paulus incorporates by reference Willingham, and
Willingham discloses an oscillator circuit configured to generate a
calibration tone, where the oscillator circuit is part of a receiver. See Paulus
15:53---60; Willingham 2:25-57, Figs. 1, 3.
4
Appeal2014-003907
Application 13/244,587
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 16, as well as claims 2-7, 10-14, 16-18, and 20, not argued
separately.
B. Claims 8, 15, and 19
Appellants argue that even assuming square wave generators and
pulse generators were well known circuits in the relevant art, the Examiner
failed to explain why it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to
derive a use of such circuits in the manner claimed (i.e., using a square wave
generator or a pulse generator as a harmonic generator to generate a
harmonic signal). Appeal Br. 14. We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's suggested combination does not adequately explain why well-
known square wave generators and pulse generators account for the claimed
harmonic generator and harmonic signal. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 15, and 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9-11, and 16-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5---6, 12-14 and 18-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 15, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2014-003907
Application 13/244,587
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6