Ex Parte Satoda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

15001906 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/001,906 01/20/2016
23446 7590 12/25/2018
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dean Naoki Satoda
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.
29273US02 7973
EXAMINER
YENKE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEAN NAOKI SATODA and DARREN E. SMITH
Appeal 2018-003679 1
Application 15/001,9062
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 8-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Our Decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Dec.
5, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 22, 2018), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Jan. 20, 2016), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Dec. 28, 2017), the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Aug. 25,
2017), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 16, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Entropic
Communications, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-003679
Application 15/001,906
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to radio communications,
including relating to radio reception and radio channel tuning. Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 8 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced
below.
8. A method of receiving a channel, comprising:
receiving a radio signal comprising a plurality of
channels, a channel of the plurality comprising a first signal and
a second signal;
converting the radio signal to an information bearing
signal using a local oscillator, the information bearing signal
comprising a converted first signal and a converted second
signal, the local oscillator having a local oscillator frequency
that is iteratively selected until an image rejection ratio of the
converted second signal to an image of the converted first
signal is above a predetermined threshold; and
digitally shifting the frequency of the information bearing
signal by an amount approximately equal to the difference
between a channel center frequency and the local oscillator
frequency.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Liu et al. (US 6,344,871 B 1; issued
Feb. 5, 2002) (hereinafter "Liu"), Silver et al. (US 2008/0225182 Al;
published Sept. 18, 2008) (hereinafter "Silver"), Jaffe (US 7,239,357 B2;
issued July 3, 2007), Mayer (US 7,239,358 Bl; issued July 3, 2007), Lee
(US 7,605,838 B2; issued Oct. 20, 2009), and Oh et al. (US 2004/0132423
A 1 ; published July 8, 2 004) (hereinafter "Oh"). Final Act. 3, 5-13 .
2
Appeal2018-003679
Application 15/001,906
ISSUE
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Liu, Silver, Jaffe,
Mayer, Lee, and Oh ( collectively, "the combination") teach or suggest
selecting a local oscillator frequency based on an image rejection ratio, in
accordance with the claims.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner errs. We find Appellants' arguments
discussed herein3 persuasive.
Appellants argue that the combination fails to teach or suggest
"iteratively select[ing]" "a local oscillator frequency ... until an image
rejection ratio of the converted second signal to an image of the converted
first signal is above a predetermined threshold," as recited in independent
claims 8 and 14. App. Br. 4--8, 12-13 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2-3.
More specifically, Appellants argue that none of the references in the
combination teach or suggest adjusting anything based on an image rejection
ratio. App. Br. 4.
As to Lee, Appellants argue that Lee teaches basing adjustments to a
local oscillation frequency upon an "error rate" ( e.g., bit error rate ("BER")
or symbol error rate), which is different than the image rejection ratio. Id.
(citing Lee Fig. 6). Appellants also argue that the Examiner's finding that
Lee seeks "to eliminate/reduce noise, which ideally reduces the error,
improves the SNR and the image rejection ratio also" is unsupported. Id. at 4-
3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
3
Appeal2018-003679
Application 15/001,906
5. According to Appellants, Lee instead teaches "filter[ing] out an adjacent
channel - not an image" signal, and "never mentions that an image rejection
ratio is a characteristic of its receiver." Id. at 4--5 (citing Lee Fig. 4C).
As to Oh, Appellants argue Oh does not teach that "error/noise" is
equivalent to an "Image Rejection Ratio," as the Examiner finds. Id. at 5---6
(citing Final Act. 3 (citing Oh ,r 83)). Rather, Oh merely teaches that its
system improves two parameters (i.e., a signal-to-noise ratio and an image-
rejection ratio), according to Appellants. Id. at 5 ( citing Oh ,r 83).
The Examiner finds that the combination teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation. See Ans. 20-24; Final Act. 3. More specifically, the
Examiner finds that the:
image rejection ratio [is] also known as [the] power-ratio[, and]
are known calculations in a receiver. Thus the question is, is
performing a known calculation/conversion with known signals
obvious, the examiner maintains it is. Specifically, if one
image overlaps the other image, whether you call it noise, error,
artifacts etc. . . the problem is one or more signals have not
been isolated, which would result in an error in the
reception/display, noise on the display etc ...
Ans. 22. In addition, the Examiner finds that Ikeda (US
2010/0112969 Al; published May 6, 2010) supports Oh, and "shows
when the power ratio (image-rejection ratio) is increased the signal
quality is less deteriorated." Ans. 22 (citing Ikeda ,r 57; Oh ,r 83).
The Examiner also finds that "BER, image-rejection, power-ratio etc.
are all known techniques to reduce the noise, error etc .... " Id. at 23.
Based on the evidence of record, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding that the combination teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Appellants' Specification teaches that
"[t]he image rejection ratio is a measurement of the ratio of the signal level
4
Appeal2018-003679
Application 15/001,906
of [a] desired input signal to [an] image signal." Spec. ,r 4. The
Specification further discloses that for channels having a plurality of signals,
"the image of one of the channel signals may interfere with the desired
... input signal of the other channel signal." Id. ,r 5. The disputed
limitation of claim 8 is directed to minimizing this type of interference by
causing a specific image rejection ratio (i.e., the ratio of a desired signal to
an image of another signal) to be above a predetermined threshold.
We agree with Appellants that none of the references in the
combination teach adjusting the local oscillation frequency based on an
image rejection ratio. Rather, these references teach or suggest other
measures ( e.g., BER, SNR) to use for minimizing interference. See Lee
Figs. 4C, 6; Oh i1 83; Ikeda i1 57.
The Examiner does not show that using the image rejection ratio to
minimize claim 8 's specific type of interference (i.e., interference caused by
an image of a first signal to a desired signal of a second signal in a channel)
would have been obvious over the other measures (i.e., BER, SNR)
disclosed by the applied references. Nor does the Examiner show that these
other measures are directed to the type of interference recited in claim 8 ( and
claim 14 which contains similar limitations), which is addressed by adjusting
claim 8 's image rejection ratio.
CONCLUSION
Based on our reasoning above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 8 and 14, as well as claims 9-13 and 15-20,
as they depend from one of these independent claims.
5
Appeal2018-003679
Application 15/001,906
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 8-20.
REVERSED
6