Ex Parte Mattisson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2017

13503168 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2017)

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.
4015-8723/C02020-US1 8759
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/503,168 06/13/2012
24112 7590 04/14/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Sven Mattisson
04/14/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SVEN MATTISSON, PIETRO ANDREANI, and
DANIELE MASTANTUONO
Appeal 2016-004484
Application 13/503,1681
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 34—37, 40-44, 56, 57, 60, 62, 65, and 72—74,
which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 1—33, 38, 39,
45—55, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, and 66—71 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Ericsson Modems SA as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004484
Application 13/503,168
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the field of radio communications,
and in particular, to a passive mixer for minimizing signal distortion.
Abstract; Spec. 1. Claim 73 is representative of the invention and the
subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
73. A passive mixer, not comprising an active component
biased by an external power source which is not an input signal,
adapted to convert a first signal having a first frequency into a
second signal having a second frequency by using a third signal
having a third frequency, comprising:
a first cancellation component adapted to generate a first
cancellation signal operative to substantially cancel second order
intermodulation components by adding the first signal weighted
by a predetermined cancellation value on the third signal; and
a mixing component having a first terminal adapted to
receive the first signal, a second terminal adapted to output the
second signal, and a third terminal adapted to receive the first
cancellation signal, wherein the mixing component is adapted to
provide the second signal as output at the second terminal by
mixing the first signal provided as input at the first terminal and
the first cancellation signal provided as input at the third
terminal.
App. Br. 26—27 (Claims App’x).
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Waugh et al.
Zhou
US 5,060,298
US 2003/0162515 Al
US 2007/0072576 Al
US 2009/0075619 Al
US 8,050,644 B1
Oct. 22, 1991
Aug. 28, 2003
Mar. 29, 2007
Mar. 19, 2009
Nov. 1,2011
Sjoland et al.
Mitomo et al.
Cosand et al.
2
Appeal 2016-004484
Application 13/503,168
Rivera US 8,175,515 B1 May 8, 2012
Uzunov et al. US 2012/0161862 A1 June 28, 2012
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 73 and 74 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waugh et al. (“Waugh”) and Cosand et al. (“Cosand”).
Final Act. 6—10.
Claims 34, 36, 37, 41—44, 56, 57, 60, and 62 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Waugh, Cosand, and (Rivera
or Uzunov et al. (“Uzunov”)). Final Act. 11—18.
Claims 40 and 65 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waugh, Cosand, (Rivera or Uzunov), and Sjoland et al.
(“Sjoland”). Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 35 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waugh, Cosand, (Rivera or Uzunov), and Zhou. Final
Act. 19-20.
Claim 72 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Waugh, Cosand, (Rivera or Uzunov), and Mitomo, et al.
(“Mitomo”). Final Act. 20—21.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
3
Appeal 2016-004484
Application 13/503,168
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in combining Waugh with
Cosand.2 App. Br. 9—18; Reply Br. 2—7. Appellants concede Waugh and
Cosand each relates to mixer circuits to address distortion. App. Br. 12.
Appellants argue, however, that Cosand’s teaching relied upon by the
Examiner contradicts, and is inconsistent with, the teachings of Waugh, and
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the two
references. App. Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants argue Waugh teaches
reducing intermodulation in a passive device, requiring unbiased terminals,
whereas Cosand teaches a method for reducing intermodulation that requires
biasing (by an external power source that is not the input signal). Id. at 12,
14, 15, 18 (citing Waugh col. 5,11. 11—13, Cosand col. 5,11. 40-44, col. 8,11.
5—17); see also id. at 13 (citing Cosand col. 4,1. 61—col. 5,1. 9). Appellants,
therefore, argue Waugh teaches away from Cosand. App. Br. 18. On the
record before us, we are persuaded of error.
In rejecting claim 73, the Examiner relies on Waugh’s teachings of a
passive mixer, mixing components, and terminals as recited in the claim, but
acknowledges Waugh lacks any teaching of a “cancellation component” and
“cancellation signal.” Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner finds the “cancellation
component” and “cancellation signal” taught in Cosand, specifically, in
Cosand’s description of an “RF input signal” that “cancels . . . contribution
to the gate-source voltage.” Final Act. 7—8. The Examiner concludes:
[Hjaving the disclosure of Cosand, a person of ordinary skill
would not be discouraged from utilizing this specific feature of
application of a portion of the input RF signal to the gates of
FETs, which is independent from biasing, to cancel the
2 Appellants argue the claims as one group; each rejection on appeal relies in
whole or in part on the Waugh-Cosand combination. We choose claim 73 as
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2016-004484
Application 13/503,168
contribution of the RF input signal’s to the gate source voltage
resulting in the largest distortion term, and thus would be well
motivated to try applying this feature to the unbiased mixer of
Waugh to further improve its linearity comparing to unmodified
mixer.
Ans. 24 (emphasis added).
As Appellants argue, however, “not be[ing] discouraged,” id., is
insufficient rationale for a person of ordinary skill to combine references.
See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-419 (2007). Although
we may take account of the “inferences and creative steps a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ,” there must be “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning” to support the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 401, 418. We find no
affirmative rationale on the record before us.3
Accordingly, on the record before us we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 34—37, 40-44, 56,
57, 60, 62, 65, and 72-74.
REVERSED
3 We also note that the Examiner’s analysis in the Answer relies on a
reference not of record and not part of the rejection on appeal. Ans. 18—19
(citing US 2003/0216128).
5