Ex Parte Guan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14344543 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/344,543
22442 7590
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/15/2014 Junqing Guan
03/26/2018
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.
7706RWTH-3 7714
EXAMINER
FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNQING GUAN
and RENATO NEGRA
Appeal 2017-008484
Application 14/344,5431
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-10. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellants identify R WTH Aachen as the real party in interest. (Appeal
Brief 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed March 12, 2014,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed May 9, 2016, the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed Dec. 12, 2016, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
March 20, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 19, 2017.
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a device for modifying trajectories
produced when a complex signal changes state to avoid their
passing near or touching the origin on a complex graph, a
circumstance resulting in spectral expansion that undesirably
requires linearity over a large bandwidth for the envelop amplifier
and phase converter used in a transmitter. Spec. 2:4-13; 5:24-29.
To solve this problem, boundary conditions are imposed on the
complex signal so that its amplitude is limited between a
minimum and maximum. Spec. 5:24-26.
Claim 1 is independent and the remaining claims are
dependent from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the
argued claim limitation shown in bold:
1. Device for modifying trajectories for use in a
transmitting device of a digital transmission device, wherein
the signals to be transmitted are modulated digitally and
complexly, wherein a trajectory occurs with a change from a
first signal state to a second signal state, comprising:
a first input (I1; Is) and a second input (I2, I4) for
receiving components of a complex signal to be transmitted,
a first output (01) for making available an amplitude
component of a modified signal to be transmitted,
a second output (02) for making available a phase
component of a modified signal to be transmitted,
a processing unit which makes modified components
available based on the received components of the signal to
be transmitted, wherein trajectories that pass near the
origin or touch the origin are modified such that the
modified trajectory passes by the origin at a greater
2
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
distance, and wherein trajectories that do not pass near the
origin are left unmodified, and
a power amplifier having a linear range of operation,
wherein the amplitude component of the modified
signal to be transmitted is greater than a minimum
amplitude and less than a maximum amplitude, and further
wherein the minimum amplitude and maximum
amplitude are within the linear range of operation of
the amplifier.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Zhuang (Jingcheng Zhuang et al., A Technique
to Reduce Phase I Frequency Modulation Bandwidth in a Polar RF
Transmitter, 57 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS-I:
REGULAR PAPERS, 2196-06 (Aug. 2010)) and McCallister (US
6,507,628 Bl, iss. Jan. 14, 2003). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Zhuang, McCallister, and Liang (US 2010/0316164 Al,
publ. Dec. 16, 2010). Final Act. 5-6.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
As the reason to combine Zhuang and McCallister, the
Examiner stated,
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have the
amplitude of the signal transmitted between the
3
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
minimum amplitude and maximum amplitude of the
linear range of operation of the amplifier so as to
provide stable and reliable transmission.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue,
nowhere does Zhuang or McCallister teach that
bounding the amplitude component of a modified signal
to be transmitted between the minimum and maximum
amplitudes of the linear range of operation of an
amplifier is necessary for, or even affects, the stability .
. . [and] reliability of a transmission. Nor does the final
Office Action provide any basis for its assertion that the
cited benefits could be obtained by modifying Zhuang in
view of McCallister.
App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Although we agree with Appellants neither reference
explicitly mentions stability and reliability of transmission, we
note that the reason to combine need not be found in the
references sought to be combined. See DyStar Textilfarben GMBH
& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., and Bann Quimica
LTDA, 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006). ("The motivation
need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but
may be found in any number of sources, including common
knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem
itself.")
We also agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the references to be
concerned at least with reliability of signal transmission in the
4
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
context of complex signal transmitting devices. For example,
Zhuang discloses "a technique that alters the signal trajectory
such that it avoids crossing (and proximity) of the constellation
origin. The resulting substantial decrease of the polar modulator
bandwidth is traded off against slight increase of in-band
modulation distortion and adjacent channel leakage." Zhuang
Abstract (emphasis omitted). McCallister teaches use of a
compressor to limit signal amplitude to avoid distortions.
McCallister 5:15-34. An ordinarily skilled person would have
understood that distortion and leakage impact the reliability of
signal transmission. In this regard, we note that "[a] person of
ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21
(2007) ("KSR"). Thus, as Zhuang and McCallister are both
concerned with reliability of signal transmission in complex signal
transmitting devices, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs on
this basis.
Appellants next argue, "the Office Action fails to identify
where in the structure of Zhuang the amplifier allegedly disclosed
by McCallister would be placed." App. Br. 6-7. The Examiner
clarifies that McCallister is not used in the rejection to
structurally modify Zhuang's transmitter, but rather that
McCallister's teaching establishes Zhuang's range is within the
linear range of operation of its amplifier. Ans. 5, Final Act. 4
(citing McCallister 5:22-27, Fig. 2). Because the combination
5
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
proposed by the Examiner does not structurally modify Zhuang in
the rejection, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. In any
case, "[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference," but rather "what the combined
teachings of those references would have suggested." In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants further argue, "given the disparate teachings and
goals of Zhuang and McCallister, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would not have modified Zhuang with McCallister to obtain
the claimed invention." Specifically, Appellants argue McCallister
is directed to a complementary receiver that compensates for
distortion imposed by a compressor used to restrict amplitude in
the transmitter, whereas Zhuang is directed to a technique to
reduce phase/frequency modulation bandwidth in a polar RF
transmitter which is all-digital and has no compressor. App. Br.
8.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing McCallister is
limited to a receiver, we do not agree. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that McCallister discloses a transmitter (as well as a
receiver) which is what the Examiner relied upon in the
obviousness rejection. Ans. 6 (citing McCallister 5:3-35, Fig. 2).
To the extent Appellants are arguing Zhuang and
McCallister are non-analogous art, we note that, like the claimed
invention, both references are directed to complex signal
6
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
transmitting devices. The references are, thus, in the same field
of endeavor as the claimed invention, and are, therefore,
analogous art. In re Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659
(Fed. Cir. 1992)); In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MANUAL OF
PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2141.0l(a) (9th ed., Rev.08.2017,
Jan. 2018).
Also, in making their argument, Appellants fail to explain
why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
understood that reducing phase/frequency modulation bandwidth,
as taught by Zhuang, and preventing nonlinearities causing
spectral expansion by limiting signal amplitude, as taught by
McCallister, are both desirable benefits to achieve in a complex
signal transmitter. "[A] court must ask whether the [claimed]
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S.
at 417. In this case, the claimed invention is not more than what
one would expect to result from combining Zhuang and
Mc Callister.
Appellants argue, "Zhuang does not teach that the polar
equivalents of the baseband I and Q data streams are or need to
be within the linear operating range of a power amplifier, or even
that the amplitude component of the signal to be transmitted is
bounded at all." App. Br. 9. However, the Examiner relied on
7
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
McCallister, not Zhuang, for this teaching. Final Act. 4 (citing
McCallister 5:22-27, Fig. 2); Ans. 7-8. "[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ...
the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted).
Appellants further state that Liang teaches that nonlinear
amplifiers may be used with polar transmitters, which we assume
relates to the argument that a person of ordinary skill would not
have combined the references. App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2-5.
However, the Examiner did not rely on Liang in the rejection of
claim 1. Thus, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites "wherein a required number of signal states
is determined dynamically based on boundary conditions, so that
the modified trajectory lies as close as possible to an original
trajectory." App. Br. 16 (Claims App.), Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants
contend,
while the disclosure of Zhuang results in the same
number of signal points being modified at every
processing step for a given boundary condition, the
present application teaches that any number of signal
points may be involved, which number is determined
dynamically based on boundary conditions, so that the
modified trajectory lies as close as possible to an original
trajectory.
App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds,
Zhuang clearly shows . . . a required number of
signal states (sample index of Fig. 13) determined
8
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
dynamically based on boundary conditions (the
maximum and minimum amplitudes as discussed
above), so that the modified trajectory (dotted line, Fig.
14) lies as close as possible to an original trajectory
(solid line, Fig. 14) as shown in Figure 14.
Ans. 8-9.
While the Specification may describe embodiments in which
any number of signal points may be modified, as Appellants argue,
there is no corresponding language in claim 6. Although claims
are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Limitations not appearing in the
claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants also argue that Zhuang does not teach or suggest
"a required number of signal states is determined dynamically
based on boundary conditions," as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 11.
However, Zhuang mentions use of different numbers of samples
(pg. 2201), and Zhuang's transmitter has the capability to
dynamically determine the number of states based on boundary
conditions. As the claim is presented on appeal, the Examiner's
finding that the prior art apparatus has the capability to perform
the claimed function is sufficient to teach or suggest the claimed
limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 14 73, 14 77-78 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (functional language does not confer patentability if prior
art structure has capability of functioning in the same manner);
9
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
see also K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (analyzing functional language as an additional limitation
to an apparatus claim).
Moreover, the recited functional limitation in claim 6 is
unconnected to any structure of the claimed device. In particular,
there is no recitation in the claim indicating which structural
component in the device performs the act of "determin[ing]
dynamically." "Claims drawn to an apparatus must distinguish
from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function." In
re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Stated differently,
"apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468
(Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we find Appellants' argument
unpersuasive considering how the claim is presented on appeal.
Claims 7 and 9
Appellants argue, "[t]he Office Action does not set forth any
motivation to combine Zhuang and Liang other than to achieve
the results of pending claims (e.g. to achieve 'bandwidth
reduction'), which constitutes improper reliance on hindsight."
App. Br. 12. In addition, Appellants argue Liang teaches away
from the claimed invention because "Liang suggests ... use of a
polar transmitter with a nonlinear power amplifier" whereas the
Specification "teaches that 'a good level of efficiency with good
linearity in the amplifier' can be obtained using 'polar
technologies."' Id. (internal citation omitted).
10
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. As the
Examiner finds, Liang discloses average-to-minimum power ratio
(AMPR) reduction can be achieved for linear amplifiers, not just
nonlinear amplifiers. Ans. 10 (citing Liang if 7 4, Figs. 13 and 20).
Also, Liang states "'[d]ue to the prior reduction in AMPR of the I
and Q signal components, the extent to which power must be
backed off to maintain PA [(power amplifier)/ linearity is reduced,
thereby easing the design requirements of the PA 2008, in
particular its required dynamic range."' Ans. 10-11 (quoting
Liang if 74). We agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the benefit of
combining Liang with Zhuang and McCallister to reduce the
amount of power that must be backed off to maintain linearity of
the power amplifier according to Liang's teaching.
Appellants also argue,
the insertion vector (ln_x, ln_y) is not part of the signal
to be transmitted, but is instead used to create a pulse
that can be combined with the signal to be transmitted
to alter the trajectory of the signal to be transmitted.
Consequently, the insertion vector (ln_x, ln_y) does not
constitute quadrature components of the signal to be
transmitted.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner states "Liang teaches ... quadrature
components (Fig. 13 and Fig. 15, modified IQ) are obtained from
the amplitude component of a signal to be transmitted and the
phase component of the signal to be transmitted (#1204, Figure 13
11
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
and #1016, Fig. 15)." Final Act. 6. Thus, the Examiner is not
relying on the insertion vector (ln_x, ln_y) as teaching the claimed
quadrature components, but on the modified complex signal I', Q'
in Figures 13 and 15 of Liang. Appellants' argument does not
address the Examiner's finding, and is unpersuasive to show the
Examiner's rejection is in error.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument fails to consider that
when the insertion vector (ln_x, ln_y) is used to modify the
complex signal I, Q to produce modified complex signal I', Q', it
ultimately becomes, through subsequent processing, part of the
signal to be transmitted. See Liang Fig. 15. As Appellants'
argument does not address where in the signal flow the
modification must be performed to be considered part of the signal
to be transmitted, or where any such feature is recited in the
claims, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive to show
Examiner error.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are provided for the remaining
dependent claims, which fall with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4 and
6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
12
Appeal2017-008484
Application 14/344,543
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).
AFFIRMED
13