Ex Parte HSU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

12237827 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/237,827 09/25/2008
109673 7590 06/30/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hong-Ta HSU
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.
251812-3342 1508
EXAMINER
SANDIFORD, DEV AN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG-TA HSU and YING-HSI LIN
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 7-13 and 16-25 (Ans. 2-3; App. Br. 2; Final Act. 18-
20):12
Claims 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Khorram (US 2003/0157902 Al; published Aug. 21, 2003).
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Khorram in view of Kiss (US 2005/00260949 Al; published Nov. 24, 2005).
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Khorram in view of Kiss and C. Paul Lee et al., "A Highly Linear Direct-
Conversion Transmit Mixer Transconductance Stage with Local Oscillation
Feedthrough and !IQ Imbalance Cancellation Scheme," IEEE International
Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2006. ISSCC 2006. Digest of Technical
Papers. IEEE International, vol., no., 1450-59, 6-9 Feb. 2006.
Claims 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Khorram in view of Vassiliou (US 2006/0178165 Al; published Aug. 10,
2006).
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed February 9, 2012 ("Final Act."); the Appeal
Brief filed May 14, 2012 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed
October 4, 2012 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed December 3, 2012
("Reply Br.").
2 Although the Examiner initially omits claims 16 and 17 from the recitation
of rejected claims (Ans. 2), the Examiner clarifies that claims 16 and 17 do
stand rejected as obvious over Khorram. See Ans. 3 (stating that claims 7-
13 and 16-25 stand rejected); id. (stating that no rejections have been
withdrawn); Final Act. 18-20 (setting forth the obviousness rejections of
claims 16 and 17).
2
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
Claims 14 and 15 stand objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, and claims 26-29 are allowed.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 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 reverse.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
An adjusting method for reducing local oscillation leakage
or I/O mismatch in a transmitter includes the steps of:
(a) detecting a current extent of local oscillation leakage or I/Q
mismatch; (b) determining if an adjusting direction is correct
with reference to the current extent of local oscillation leakage
Or I/O mismatch thus detected, maintaining the adjusting
direction if correct, and reversing the adjusting direction upon
determining that the adjusting direction is incorrect; and
( c) adjusting a control signal according to the adjusting direction.
Abstract.
Independent claim 7, reproduced below with emphasis added, is
illustrative of the appealed claims:
7. A transmitter comprising;
a first mixer for mixing a base band signal and a local
oscillator signal so as to generate a radio frequency signal;
a detecting unit for generating from the radio frequency
signal a detection signal that represents an extent of local
oscillation leakage or in-phase/quadrature-phase (I/O) mismatch;
and
an adjusting unit coupled electrically to said first mixer for
outputting a control signal thereto to control a current operating
3
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
state of said first mixer, said adjusting unit being further coupled
electrically to said detecting unit, and determining whether there
is a reduction in the extent of local oscillation leakage or I/O
mismatch based on the detection signal from said detecting unit;
wherein said adjusting unit maintains an adjusting
direction for the control signal upon determining that the extent
of local oscillation leakage or 110 mismatch is reduced, reverses
the adjusting direction upon determining that the extent of local
oscillation leakage or 110 mismatch is not reduced, and adjusts
the control signal according to the adjusting direction.
ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds that Khorram discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 7, including the last limitation of
[an] adjusting unit [that] maintains an adjusting direction
for the control signal upon determining that the extent of local
oscillation leakage or I/O mismatch is reduced, reverses the
adjusting direction upon determining that the extent of local
oscillation leakage or I/O mismatch is not reduced, and adjusts
the control signal according to the adjusting direction.
Final Act. 4, 9-10 (addressing the disputed claim 7 language in relation to
then-pending independent claim 1 ).
The Examiner explains that Khorram teaches a process for reducing
local oscillation (LO) leakage that is iterative in nature, and that this iterative
process reads on maintaining and reversing the direction of the current-
operating-state control signal. Ans. 8-9 (citing Khorram i-fi-157, 64, 78;
FIGs. 5, 6, 11, and 17).
Appellants assert, inter alia, that "although Khorram addresses
reducing local oscillator leakage, Khorram does not suggest doing so by
reversing 'the adjusting direction upon determining that the extent of local
4
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
oscillation leakage or l/Q mismatch is not reduced.'" App. Br. 11.
According to Appellants,
Khorram merely discloses taking measurements at different
calibration cycles until the measurement falls below a threshold.
Accordingly, in Khorram, if a threshold is not met in two
iterations, then it is unknown whether there is a reduction. Put
another way, Khorram merely suggests measuring the magnitude
of local oscillator feedthrough [or leakage] at isolated points in
time rather than measuring whether there is a reduction.
App. Br. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Khorram discloses two alternative calibration methods of optimizing
the operational parameters by minimizing the LO leakage. Khorram i-fi-1 7 5-
78; FIGs. 16, 17. In the calibration method depicted in FIG. 16, the optimal
control signal is determined by setting the local oscillator to a selected
calibration frequency, testing every possible input control signal state,
storing in memory the leakage results of each test, and then selecting as the
optimal setting, the input setting that produced the lowest LO leakage
strength. Id. 75-76.
The calibration method depicted in FIG. 17 is similar to that method
depicted in FIG. 16. The optimal control signal is determined by setting the
local oscillator to a selected calibration frequency and testing various input
control signal states. Khorram i-fi-177-78. Instead of testing every possible
input control signal state and selecting the minimum-leakage state, though,
the FIG. 17 calibration method selects the first tested input state that
produces a LO leakage that is below a designated leakage-strength threshold.
5
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
Id. Specifically, the LO leakage strength is measured and stored at step
1712.3 Id. i178.
Id.
In step 1714, a test is performed to determine whether measured
LO leakage conforms to a predetermined threshold level. If the
threshold is met, the processing stops and the system returns to
step 1702 to wait for the next calibration cycle. If, however, the
threshold is not met, processing proceeds to step 1716 where the
state is changed and the control signal 142 is set to change the
mixer parameters to another state. Processing then returns to step
1 712 where the LO leakage is again measured and then tested in
step 1714 to determine if the predetermined threshold is met.
Steps 1712-1716 are repeated until the predetermined threshold
is met.
Neither the calibration method of FIG. 17, which was relied upon by
the Examiner, nor the alternative calibration method of FIG. 16, reasonably
can be interpreted as constituting an iterative method, as recited by
independent claim 7. The method of FIG. 16 does not maintain or reverse
the adjusting direction based upon any determinations, much less based upon
a determination of whether the leakage or I/Q mismatch is reduced. Rather,
the method of FIG. 16 instead entails testing every possible state regardless
of the result. Khorram i1i175, 76.
Khorram's calibration method FIG. 17 does change the input setting
based upon a determination that the LO leakage current is too high.
Khorram i178. However, Khorram does not state that an adjusting direction
is maintained or reversed based upon determining that the extent of local
oscillation leakage or I/Q mismatch is reduced or not.
3 Paragraph 78 of Khorram contains a typographical error, erroneously
referring to step 1712 of Figure 17 as "step 1612."
6
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
Nor do any of the other portions of Khorram cited by the Examiner
(Ans. 7) teach or suggest adjusting the direction of the control signal in
response to determining whether such a reduction occurs. See Khorram
i-f 57; FIGs. 5, 6 (discussing reducing LO leakage in programmable mixers
generally); i-f 64 (discussing the logic diagram of FIG. 10, which is directed
to the method of identifying the combination of gated current sources that
provide the least current mismatch); FIG. 11 (setting forth calibration and
control circuitry for minimizing local oscillator feedthrough).
For these reasons, then, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 7. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner's rejection of that claim, as well as claims 8-13, which
depend from claim 7.
We, likewise, reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims
16, 17, and 18-25. Dependent claims 16 and 17 ultimately depend from
independent claim 7. The Examiner does not rely on Kiss or Lee to
overcome the shortcoming of Khorram noted above. See Final Act. 18-19
(indicating that Kiss is being relied upon for teaching a fast Fourier
transformer); id. 19-20 (indicating that Lee is being relied upon for teaching
a variable gain amplifier included in the detector).
Regarding the obviousness rejection of independent claim 18, as well
as dependent claims 19-25, over Khorram in view of Vassiliou, independent
claim 18 recites an adjusting unit having functionality, similar to that of
claim 7. The Examiner solely relies upon Khorram for teaching this
language. Final Act. 24--25 (indicating that Vassiliou is relied upon for its
teachings of a compensating unit, digital-to-analog converters, and low pass
filters).
7
Appeal2013-002561
Application 12/237,827
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 7-13 and 16-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
8