Ex Parte Lerner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12842033 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/842,033 07/23/2010
23494 7590 08/02/2016
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory Lerner
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.
TI-68349 3271
EXAMINER
V ARNDELL, ROSS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY LERNER, NIR EJ T AL,
RONEN SHAUL ISAAC, and ROI FAUST
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-15, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to wireless transceivers, and more
specifically to Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) wireless transceiver
architecture (Spec. if 2).
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A wireless receiver comprising:
a first signal processing chain;
a second signal processing chain; and
a baseband processor;
wherein, in a single-input single-output (SISO) mode of
operation, each of the first signal processing chain and the second
signal processing chain is coupled to receive a same input
modulated signal as input, and respectively generates a first
baseband output and a second baseband output, the baseband
processor to process the first baseband output and second
baseband output to demodulate the input modulated signal, and
wherein, in a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO)
mode of operation, the first signal processing chain is coupled to
receive a first modulated signal and to generate a first down-
converted output, wherein the second signal processing chain is
coupled to receive a second modulated signal and to generate a
second down-converted output, wherein the baseband processor
processes the first down-converted signal to demodulate the first
modulated signal and the second down-converted signal to
demodulate the second modulated signal.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Banh (US 2007/0298748 Al; Dec. 27, 2007) and Petrick (US
5,712,870; Jan. 27, 1998) (see Final Act. 5-9).
2
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
Claims 9--11 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takeda (US 2006/0250182 Al; Nov. 9, 2006) and Petrick
(see Final Act. 9--12).
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Takeda, Petrick, and Kim (US 2010/0142416 Al; June 10,
2010) (see Final Act. 13-14).
Claims 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Takeda, Banh, and Petrick (see Final Act. 14--18).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1---8
The Examiner finds Banh discloses the recited elements of the
wireless receiver of claim 1 except for a baseband processor for which the
Examiner relies on Petrick (Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner specifically finds
Petrick teaches a baseband processor as eiement 80 in Figure 2 of Petrick
(id.). Appellants argue the proposed combination does not teach or suggest
"that the first and second signal processing chains receive first and second
signals, respectively, in MIMO mode, and receive a same signal in SISO
mode" because Figures 6 and 7 of Banh show that chains 408 and 410
receive no signal (App. Br. 12).
In response, the Examiner further finds Figure 2 of Petrick "discloses
SISO mode; where, both the first and second signal processing chains are
connected to receive the same input modulated signal" (Ans. 2). Citing to
Figure 5 of Banh for teaching communication in MIMO mode, the Examiner
finds the combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art based on Banh's description of the benefits of using MIMO and SISO
3
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
signal receiving modes (Ans. 4--5 (citing Banh i-f 25); see also Banh i-f 26).
Appellants contend the modified position of the Examiner is in error because
Petrick teaches only a single SISO mode rather than both SISO and MIMO
modes of operation (Reply Br. 8). Furthermore, Appellants argue there is no
reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Banh and Petrick
because Petrick' s use of SISO mode teaches against combining such mode
with the MIMO mode of Banh (Reply Br. 9).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner
erred because the rejection is based on the combination of Petrick with
Banh. Each reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly
teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
wouid have suggested to those of ordinary skin in the art."); see also In re
Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Banh
teaches both MIMO and SISO modes of operation which is modified by
Petrick's base band processor and SISO mode of operation where both the
first and second signal processing chains receive the same input modulated
signal, as recited in claim 1 (see Banh i-f 26; Petrick col. 5, 11. 5-30).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Banh with Petrick teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. We therefore sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-8
4
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
which are not argued separately or with sufficient specificity (see App. Br.
14--17).
Claims 9--11 and 14
The Examiner finds Takeda teaches all the limitations of claim 9
except for I and Q data wherein the first and second analog outputs are
combined to form the first modulated signal, for which the Examiner relies
on Petrick (Final Act. 9--11 ). Appellants contend one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have combined the references because the proposed
modification would destroy Takeda's disclosed operation (App. Br. 18-19).
The Examiner further relies on paragraphs 95 and 100 of Takeda and
explains that Takeda discloses both SISO and MIMO communications
modes whereas Petrick was relied on as teaching the I and Q data sent along
the first and second signal processing chains to be later combined to form
the first modulated signal (Ans. 5-7). Therefore, contrary to Appellants'
argument that an "efficiency drop" in the first power ampiifier (PA) is
against the stated reason for the combination (Reply Br. 10-11 ), Takeda
describes the benefits of using both MIMO and SISO communication modes
which is not related to PA optimization (see Ans. 7-8 (citing Takeda i-fi-f 13,
14)).
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Takeda with Petrick teaches or
suggests all the limitations of claim 9. We therefore sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 9 and dependent claims 10, 11, and 14, which are
not argued separately or with sufficient specificity (see App. Br. 21 ).
5
Appeal2014-006892
Application 12/842,033
Remaining Claims
Appellants contend the patentability of claims 12, 13, and 15 based on
arguments similar to those presented for claims 1-11 and 14 (App. Br. 22-
29). For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Takeda,
Petrick, and Kim or Takeda, Banh, and Petrick teaches or suggests the
recited features of claims 12, 13, and 15 and sustain their rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15.
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
6