Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2012

11796175 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/796,175 04/27/2007 Dongyun Lee Sll-2201 4397
60974 7590 03/14/2012
GIRARD & EQUITZ LLP
1539 Taraval St.
SUITE 202
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94116
EXAMINER
MALEK, LEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DONGYUN LEE
________________

Appeal 2009-014083
Application 11/796,175
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014083
Application 11/796,175

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 14, 17, 18, and 20. These claims all stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yamashita
(US 2003/0072227 A1; Apr. 17, 2003) in view of Babanezhad (US
6,169,764 B1; Jan. 2, 2001).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the invention as “[a]n adjustable equalizer that
includes a first branch including a low pass filter (LPF) and having a
variable gain (β), and a second branch including a high pass filter (HPF) and
having another variable gain (α)” (Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, reading as follows:
1. A controllable equalizer, comprising:
a first branch including a low pass filter and having a
variable first gain, wherein the first branch is configured to
produce a first signal by low-pass filtering and applying the
first gain to an input signal;
a second branch including a high pass filter and having a
variable second gain, wherein the first gain and the second gain
are independently controllable, the second branch is configured
to produce a second signal by high-pass filtering and applying
the second gain to the input signal; and
at least one current sharing node from which current
flows into both the first branch and the second branch during
operation of the equalizer, and
at least one output node at which the equalizer asserts an
equalized signal in response to the input signal, wherein the
equalized signal is determined by the sum of the first signal and
Appeal 2009-014083
Application 11/796,175

3
the second signal, wherein the equalizer has a transfer function
having a zero whose location can be controlled by varying one
of the first gain and the second gain relative to the other of said
first gain and said second gain.
The Examiner finds that Yamashita discloses an equalizer possessing
much of the subject matter of the claimed equalizer, including, inter alia,
two branches: a first branch including a low pass filter and having a variable
first gain, and a second branch including a high pass filter and having a
variable second gain (Ans. 3-4 (citing Yamashita, ¶ [0068])). The Examiner
also finds that the gains are independently controllable (Ans. 3). The
Examiner further finds that Yamashita fails to disclose “that the equalizer
has a transfer function having a zero whose location can be controlled by
moving one of the first gain and the second gain relative to the other of said
first gain and said second gain” (Ans. 4), but that Babanezhad provides
teachings and motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to incorporate this feature into Yamashita’s two-branch equalizer:
Babanezhad . . . discloses that high pass filter inside the
equalizer has a transfer function that it’s [sic] zero location can
be changed by changing the gain of the filter (see column 3,
first paragraph, especially lines 6-8). Therefore, Babanezhad
clearly teaches the relationship between applying a gain change
to an equalizer (or filter) and changing the location of zero in
equalizer’s transfer function. One [sic: of] ordinary skill in the
art would clearly recognize that, this gain change can be the
change in gain of the high pass filter, when the high pass filter
is the only filter inside the equalizer, or change in the gain of a
first filter relative to a second filter when there are two filters
inside the equalizer. It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to change the
location of zero in the transfer function to maximize the slope
of the transfer function as suggested by Babanezhad (see
column 3, paragraph 2). The slope of the transfer function is
the gain factor and by maximizing the slope as suggested by
Appeal 2009-014083
Application 11/796,175

4
Babanezhad the equalizer would effectively compensate for
channel loss (see column 3, paragraph 2).
(Id.).
Appellant asserts, inter alia,
Contrary to the assertion in the final Office Action,
Babanezhad does not teach (at col. 3 or elsewhere)
implementing an equalizer to have a transfer function with a
variable zero location in order “to maximize the slope of the
transfer function.” Rather, Babanezhad teaches (at col. 3, lines
8-32) implementing a single-branch equalizer (including an
HPF and configured to provide high-frequency gain boosting)
to have a transfer function with a zero location that can be
varied (when the equalizer operates to assert an equalized signal
to a comparator) to maximize the slope of the equalized signal
asserted to the comparator. This teaching of Babanezhad is
specific to the type of single-branch equalizer described therein
when used in the specific application described therein. There
is no basis determinable from Babanezhad (or any other
reference of record) for assuming that it pertains to a two-
branch equalizer of the type recited in each claim on appeal,
and in general it would not. If one of ordinary skill in the art
were to follow Babanezhad’s teaching, he or she would use a
single-branch equalizer as described in Babanezhad; not a two-
branch equalizer which in general would have very different
characteristics than Babanezhad’s single-branch equalizer.
There is no basis determinable from Yamashita or
Babanezhad (or any other reference of record) for concluding
that modification of Yamashita’s two-branch equalizer in
accordance with the teaching of Babanezhad would result in an
[sic: a] two-branch equalizer having a transfer function which
satisfies the noted limitation of claims 1, 14, and 20.
(App. Br. 12).

Appeal 2009-014083
Application 11/796,175

5
ANALYSIS
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14,
and 20, which all contain the disputed limitation, or the rejection of claims 4,
5, 17, and 18, which all depend from claims 1 and 14.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 5, 14, 17, 18, and 20 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc