Ex Parte Pan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2014

10977210 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MENG-AN (MICHAEL) PAN1
____________________

Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant’s invention generally relates to “processing of radio signals
in a radio frequency (RF) transceiver . . . [and m]ore specifically . . . to a
method and system for sharing [a transconductance amplifier] Gm stage for
a second IF mixer using a polyphase clock to reduce current consumption
and improve matching.” Spec. ¶ [02] (“FIELD OF THE INVENTION”).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 23, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphases added):
1. A method for processing signals in a receiver, the
method comprising:
generating a plurality of output current signals from a
single I component Gm stage and a single Q component Gm
stage utilizing one or more resistors;
current mirroring said generated plurality of output
current signals from said single I component Gm stage to at
least a first I component mixer circuit and at least a second I
component mixer circuit, and from said single Q component
Gm stage to at least a first Q component mixer circuit and at
least a second Q component mixer circuit;
generating an output DC signal from an output of said
first I component mixer circuit and said first Q component
mixer circuit; and

2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Sep. 2, 2010); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 24, 2011); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 23, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,”
mailed Feb. 18, 2010); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
Oct. 29, 2004).
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

3
generating an output comprising a difference signal from
said second I component mixer circuit and said second Q
component mixer circuit.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said
generated plurality of output current signals mirrored from
said single I component Gm stage to said first I component
mixer circuit is defined by cos(2πfift), where fif is a base
frequency of said generated plurality of output current signals
from said single I component Gm stage to said first I
component mixer circuit.
3. The method according to claim 2, comprising
generating at least a first signal by mixing said generated
plurality of output current signals mirrored from said single I
component Gm stage to said first I component mixer circuit
with a local oscillator I component signal defined by cos(2πflot),
where flo is a frequency of said local oscillator I component
signal.
23. The method according to claim 1, wherein each of
said first I component mixer circuit, said second I component
mixer circuit, said first Q component mixer circuit and said
second Q component mixer circuit comprises a plurality of
Gilbert cells.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Souetinov US 6,308,058 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Moloudi US 6,417,737 B1 July 9, 2002
Auranen US 2003/0012305 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Wang US 2004/0147238 A1 July 29, 2004
BERNARD SKLAR, DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS 6 (2d ed. 2001).
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

4
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Wang. Ans. 4.
2. Claims 2, 7, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Auranen. Ans. 5.
3. Claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang,
Auranen, and Moloudi. Ans. 6.
4. Claims 23-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Souetinov. Ans. 11.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We only consider those arguments actually made by Appellant in
reaching this decision, and we do not consider arguments which Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that any such
arguments we deem to be waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to claims 1-32,
and we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Arguments. However, we highlight and address
specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1-3 and 23 for emphasis as
follows.
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

5
1. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1 and 12
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 4-9) the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Wang
is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Wang discloses all the limitations of
claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant first contends Wang does not teach or suggest, “generating
an output DC signal from an output of said first I component mixer circuit
and said first Q component mixer circuit,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Instead, Appellant alleges, Wang discloses DC calibration devices that
receive mixer signals and reduce the DC offset produced by the mixer. App.
Br. 8. Appellant further argues the Examiner is improperly relying upon a
theory of inherency in rejecting claim 1, i.e., “it appears that the Examiner is
claiming that generating an output DC signal from an output of the first I
component mixer circuit and the first Q component mixer circuit is
inherently disclosed by Wang.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Further to
this argument, Appellant traversed the Examiner’s finding of inherency and
requested the Examiner provide a rationale and/or evidence in support of the
finding of inherency. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
[i]t is inherent that a baseband signal “refer to a signal whose
spectrum extends from DC up to some finite value,” and thus
include DC signals, as evidenced by Sklar (page 6, lines 8-9).
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

6
Furthermore, the disclosed broadband signal output of mixer 24
is applied to the broad limitation for “DC signal,” since this
limitation does not distinguish itself from a broadband signal.
Ans. 14. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided a rationale for the finding
of inherency, as well as evidence in support of the finding, i.e., Sklar page 6,
lines 8-9.
Further, Appellant argues Wang’s disclosure of a quadrature output
from an additive summer is not equivalent to the claimed “generating an
output DC signal.” App. Br. 7. Appellant alleges the Examiner has
misinterpreted Appellant’s Specification by finding baseband signals include
a DC component. App. Br. 8. The Examiner has allegedly misinterpreted
the Specification because:
The specification clearly states that only if the phase of the
local oscillator signal is 90 degrees out of phase with the phase
of the input IF signal and the magnitude of the local oscillator
signal is equal to the magnitude of the input IF signal, the
output of a mixer is a baseband signal at 0 kHz, or in other
words, a DC signal. The Appellant reiterates that Wang does
not disclose this specific scenario, and thus does not necessarily
disclose the limitation that the baseband signal is equivalent to
a DC signal. In other words, not every baseband signal is
equivalent to a DC signal (as improperly suggested by the
Examiner), and the baseband signal is equivalent to a DC
signal, only if the phase of the local oscillator signal is 90
degrees out of phase with the phase of the input IF signal and
the magnitude of the local oscillator signal and the input IF
signal is equal, as disclosed by the specification in paragraphs
42, and 47-52. Accordingly, Wang neither suggests nor
discloses “generating an output DC signal,” as claimed by the
Appellant in independent claim 1.
Id. (emphases omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
because, during examination, claim terms are to be given their broadest
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

7
reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the
Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note
Appellant’s Specification states “[i]n this case, the intermediate frequency
may be 100 KHz, for example, and the baseband frequency refers to 0 KHz
or DC frequency.” Spec. ¶ [42]. Thus, in light of the permissive language
in Appellant’s Specification, we find the Examiner’s interpretation that
baseband signals include a DC component is broad, but reasonable. Further,
we find Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1, which does not require any particular phase relationship between
the local oscillator and IF signal.
Appellant also contends (App. Br. 10-12) Wang does not disclose the
limitations:
generating a plurality of output current signals from a
single I component Gm stage and a single Q component Gm
stage utilizing one or more resistors; [and]
current mirroring said generated plurality of output
current signals from said single I component Gm stage to at
least a first I component mixer circuit and at least a second I
component mixer circuit, and from said single Q component
Gm stage to at least a first Q component mixer circuit and at
least a second Q component mixer circuit.
Claim 1. Instead, Appellant contends, “Wang discloses DC offset
calibration circuits 35 and 37 that can be used as current mirrors for
transforming I and Q voltage signals to current signals, but does not disclose
or suggest at least the [generating a plurality of output current signals]
limitation” (App. Br. 11). Appellant further contends Wang also discloses
“DC offset calibration devices that may be current mirrors that receive
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

8
output signals from mixers and reduce the DC offset generated by the
mixer,” but does not disclose the current limiting step of claim 1. App. Br.
12. We disagree.
Wang discloses DC offset calibration circuits 35 and 37 correspond to
an in-phase IF signal I and a quadrature-phase IF signal Q, respectively,
which each are a current mirror for transforming the in-phase IF signal I and
the quadrature-phase IF signal Q from voltage signals into current signals.
Wang ¶ [0030]. Wang further discloses a transconductance stage (Gm) that
utilizes one or more resistors. Wang ¶ [0032]; Fig. 4 (elements R and R0).
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. As Appellant has
not provided separate arguments with respect to independent claim 12,
rejected on the same basis as claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
2. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 2, 7, 13, and 18
Issue 2
Appellant argues (App. Br. 14-22; Reply Br. 9-11) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 7, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Auranen is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Wang discloses all the limitations of
claim 1, but fails to teach or suggest the claimed generated “plurality of
output signals mirrored from said I component Gm stage to said first I
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

9
component mixer circuit is defined by cos(2πfift), where fif is a base
frequency of said generated plurality of output signals from said I
component Gm stage to said first I component mixer circuit,” as recited in
claim 2?
Analysis
Appellant contends Wang is deficient in teaching or suggesting the
limitations in claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, as discussed above with
respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Appellant makes similar
allegations with respect to the recitations of dependent claim 7. App. Br. 15.
We disagree for the reasons discussed, supra.
With regard to the specific limitations of claim 2, Appellant further
contends Wang does not teach or suggest “said generated plurality of output
current signals mirrored from said single I component Gm stage to said
second I component mixer circuit is defined by cos(2πfift), where fif is a base
frequency of said generated plurality of output current signals from said
single I component Gm stage to said second I component mixer circuit.” Id.
Instead, Appellant contends,
the combination of Wang and Auranen discloses that the
baseband I signal component is of the form cos(2πfat) and the
baseband Q signal component is of the form sin(2πfat) and DC
offset calibration devices that might be current mirrors that
receive output signals from mixers and reduce the DC offset
generated by the mixer, but does not disclose . . . the [recited]
limitations.
App. Br. 19.
In response, the Examiner finds:
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

10
Wang discloses the calibration devices 35 and 37 correspond to
in-phase IF signal I and quadrature-phase IF signal Q
respectively, and that each is a current mirror for transforming
the in-phase IF signal I and the quadrature-phase IF signal Q
from voltage signal into current signals (page 3, [0030]).
Therefore, Wang discloses converting the in-phase and
quadrature-phase IF signals into current signals. Auranen
discloses that the general form for in-phase signal waves are
[sic] defined by cos(2πft) (page 6, [0090]). Taken together, it is
implicit that the in-phase IF signal in Wang would be
represented by cos(2πft), such that in a generalized case,
frequency f corresponds to fif.
Ans. 17 (emphases omitted). We agree with the Examiner’s finding
regarding the well-known phase relationships between the I and Q channel
signals cited above, and their well-known mathematical representations as
cosine and sine functions of, for example, the IF signal.
Appellant further contends the Examiner has improperly taken
Official Notice with respect to the statement “it is well known in the art that
the general form [of] an in-phase signal wave is defined by cos(2πfift).”
App. Br. 21.
The Examiner responded to Appellant’s allegation regarding the
taking of Official Notice, and we agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Ans. 18. In support of the Examiner’s position, we note Official Notice
unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the
Examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common
knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable
demonstration as being well-known. We find that to be the case here.
As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA
1970), the notice of facts beyond the record which may be taken by the
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

11
Examiner must be “capable of such instant and unquestionable
demonstration as to defy dispute” (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296
F.2d 230 (CCPA 1961)). In Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1090, the court held that the
Board properly took judicial notice that “it is old to adjust intensity of a
flame in accordance with the heat requirements.” See also In re Fox, 471
F.2d 1405, 1407 (CCPA 1973) (The court took “judicial notice of the fact
that tape recorders commonly erase tape automatically when new ‘audio
information’ is recorded on a tape which already has a recording on it.”).
We find the mathematical form of in-phase and quadrature signals using sine
and cosine functional notation is equally well-known in the art.
However, we also note Appellant’s argument is untimely, as the issue
is first raised in the Appeal Brief, and the Examiner’s rejection has not
changed between the non-final office action mailed August 18, 2009, and the
final rejection mailed February 18, 2010. Therefore, any alleged taking of
Official Notice was not timely challenged by Appellant, and any such notice
taken by the Examiner may be considered as admitted prior art.
“To adequately traverse such a finding [of official notice], an
applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s
action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to
be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).”
MPEP § 2144.03(C). An adequate traversal must contain adequate
information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying notice of what is well-known to one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). Appellant has
done nothing more than allege the impropriety of the Examiner’s taking of
Official Notice, purportedly because the prior art of record does not teach or
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

12
suggest the disputed limitations. We disagree for the reasons discussed
above.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2. As the rejection of
dependent claims 7, 13, and 18, on the same basis as claim 2 and all reciting
similar language, turns on the same issue, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-22
Issue 3
Appellant argues (App. Br. 23-60; Reply Br. 11-23) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wang, Auranen, and Moloudi is
in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the limitation of
generating at least a first signal by mixing said generated
plurality of output current signals mirrored from said single I
component Gm stage to said first I component mixer circuit
with a local oscillator I component signal defined by cos(2πflot),
where flo is a frequency of said local oscillator I component
signal,
as recited in claim 3?
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

13
Analysis
Appellant asserts the combination of Wang, Auranen, and Moloudi
discloses current mirroring output signals from mixers to DC calibration
devices (as opposed to a single Gm stage to a mixer circuit), but does not
teach or suggest current mirroring the “generated plurality of output current
signals mirrored from said single I component Gm stage to a first I
component mixer circuit,” as claimed by Appellant in dependent claim 3.
App. Br. 23. Appellant further contends the combination of prior art does
not teach or suggest “generating at least a first signal by mixing said
generated plurality of output current signals . . . with a local oscillator I
component signal defined by cos(2πflot),” also recited in claim 3. Id.
Instead, Appellant alleges the reference combination merely discloses
“quadrature mixers that produces [sic] . . . a baseband I signal component of
the form cos(2πfat),” but does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation
of “generating at least a first signal by mixing said generated plurality of
output current signals mirrored from said single I component Gm stage to
said first I component mixer circuit with a local oscillator I component
signal defined by cos(2πflot).” App. Br. 27.
We find Appellant’s principal arguments have been addressed in
connection with the rejection of claim 1, discussed supra. In particular, we
find Wang discloses calibration circuits 35 and 37 are current mirrors for
generating current signals from the I and Q IF signals (Wang, ¶ [0030]), and
their corresponding connection between signals in the 4 multipliers in mixer
44. Wang, Fig. 2. We also find Wang teaches or suggests local oscillator
signal generator 22 is connected to mixer 24 to allow mixer 24 to use the LO
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

14
frequency to down convert the in-phase I and quadrature Q IF signals into
baseband signals. Wang, ¶ [0027]. Furthermore, we find it is implicit that
signal output by the local oscillator generator 22 would have a frequency
of flo.
Appellant also argues the Examiner has improperly taken Official
Notice that an in-phase signal is defined by cos(2πft), similar to claim 2. We
disagree for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 3. As Appellant has
not provided separate, substantive arguments with respect to dependent
claim 14, rejected on the same basis as claim 3, we similarly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for patentability
of dependent 4-6, 8-11, 15-17, and 19-22, rejected on the same basis as
claims 3 and 14 (App. Br. 29-60), we find the Examiner has rebutted each of
those arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 7-
11, 20-27. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which we incorporate herein by reference. Consequently, we
have found no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4-6, 8-
11, 15-17, and 19-22.
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

15
4. Unpatentability Rejection of Claims 23-32
Issue 4
Appellant argues (App. Br. 60-63; Reply Br. 23) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Wang and Souetinov is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in combining the references in the manner
suggested to teach or suggest the addition of “a plurality of Gilbert cells,” as
recited in claim 23?
Analysis
Appellant contends, “the Examiner has failed to provide ‘articulated
reasoning with some rationale [sic] underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness’ in the detailed manner described in KSR [Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)]. Rather, the Examiner
merely provides cursory statements in an attempt to support the claim
rejections,” and, “[a]s such, the rejections based on the proposed
combination of Wang and Souetinov is [sic] improper and should be
withdrawn.” App. Br. 62-63. We disagree with Appellant’s contentions, as
discussed below.
The ultimate issue of obviousness is a matter of law that turns on four
underlying factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art, (3) the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art, and (4) objective indicia of
nonobviousness (secondary considerations). See Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966); KSR, 550 U.S. at 406. The presence or absence of
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

16
a reason “to combine references in an obviousness determination is a pure
question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The Examiner has provided a basis for combining the references in
the manner suggested (Ans. 27-28), and Appellant has provided no evidence
that combining the teachings of Wang and Souetinov was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007),
nor has Appellant presented evidence that this incorporation yielded more
than expected results.
We find Appellant’s invention is simply a combination of known
teachings that realize a predictable result, i.e., “mixers can be implemented
by connecting two Gilbert cell circuits in parallel.” Ans. 27 (citing
Souetinov col. 1, ll. 12-19). The Supreme Court has determined the
conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. 418. The skilled
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21.
Accordingly, Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner’s suggested
combination of prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 23. As Appellant has not provided separate,
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 24-32, rejected on
Appeal 2011-007846
Application 10/977,210

17
the same basis as claim 23, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Wang, and we
sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 2, 7, 13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Wang and Auranen, and we sustain the rejection.
(3) The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 3-6, 8-11, 14-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Wang, Auranen, and Moloudi, and we sustain the
rejection.
(4) The Examiner did not err with respect to the unpatentability
rejection of claims 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Wang and Souetinov, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

bab