Ex Parte Wetzker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

10564293 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte GUNNAR WETZKER and DOMINICUS
MARTINUS LEENAERTS
____________________

Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 11, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants’ invention relates to a receiver for receiving frequency
signals, a system comprising a receiver for receiving frequency signals and a
transmitter, a modulating/filtering stage for use in a receiver, and a method
and a processor program product for receiving frequency signals.
Specification 1:1-4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A receiver comprising:
[1] a receiving stage that receives frequency signals;
[2] a mixing stage coupled to the receiving stage that
generates converted frequency signals;
[3] a modulating stage coupled to the mixing stage that delta-
sigma modulates the converted frequency signals; and
[4] a filtering stage coupled to the modulating stage that
filters the delta-sigma modulated converted frequency signals,
wherein the filtering stage comprises a decimator receiving an
output signal from a time-control loop having a loop quantizer
and a loop filter.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Oct. 1, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 1, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 30, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jun. 5, 2009).
Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Green
Robinson
US 6,225,928B1
US 7,130,327B2
May 1, 2001
Oct. 31, 2006
Melanson
Masenten
Prasad
US 2004/0032355 A1
US 2004/0057534 A1
US 2004/0210801 A1
Feb. 19, 2004
Mar. 25, 2004
Oct. 21, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masenten and Prasad.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masenten, Prasad, and Melanson.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masenten, Prasad, and Robinson.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masenten, Prasad, and Green.

ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9 and
11 turns on whether the combination of Masenten and Prasad teaches or
suggests “wherein the filtering stage further comprises a decimator receiving
a feedback signal from a time-control loop having a loop quantizer and a
loop filter,” as per claim 1, and whether the cited prior art teaches or
suggests an adder, an inverse z block, and a gain block, as per claim 11.
Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. 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 set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1, 2, and 5-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Masenten and Prasad
The Appellants contend that the combination of Masenten and Prasad
fails to teach or suggest “wherein the filtering stage further comprises a
decimator receiving a feedback signal from a time-control loop having a
loop quantizer and a loop filter,” as per claims 1, 2, and 5-9. App. Br. 6-7.
The Appellants specifically argue that Prasad fails to teach or suggest a loop
quantizer because Prasad describes a digital-to-analog converter, whereas a
quantizer performs analog-to-digital conversion. App. Br. 7.
We disagree with the Appellants. As found by the Examiner, Prasad
describes an audio analog-to-digital converter that includes a delta-sigma
modulator. Ans. 12-13 (citing Prasad ¶ 0014 and Fig. 1). The “delta-sigma
modulator 102 is represented in FIG. 1 by a summer 103, low-pass filter
104, comparator (quantizer) 105, and DAC [digital-to-analog converter] 106
in the delta-sigma feedback loop.” Prasad ¶ 0016. This feedback loop
Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293

5
outputs to decimator 107. Prasad Fig. 1. That is, each delta-sigma
modulator is coupled to a filtering stage that includes a loop filter and a
comparator (quantizer). The Appellants have neither rebutted these findings
by the Examiner nor provided evidence or rationale to distinguish the
claimed invention from Masenten and Prasad. As such, we do not find the
Appellants’ argument that the combination of Masenten and Prasad fails to
describe “wherein the filtering stage further comprises a decimator receiving
a feedback signal from a time-control loop having a loop quantizer and a
loop filter” to be persuasive.
The Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claims 2, 5, and 6 for the same reasons asserted in support of
claim 1 (App. Br. 8) is not found to be persuasive for the same reasons
discussed supra.

Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Masenten, Prasad, and Melanson
The Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 3 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 1 (App.
Br. 8) is not found to be persuasive for the same reasons discussed supra.

Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Masenten, Prasad, and Robinson
The Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 4 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 1 (App.
Br. 9) is not found to be persuasive for the same reasons discussed supra.
Appeal 2010-008683
Application 10/564,293

6

Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Masenten, Prasad, and Green
The Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 11 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 1
(App. Br. 9-10) is not found to be persuasive for the same reasons discussed
supra.
The Appellants further contend that Green fails to teach or suggest an
adder, inverse z block, and gain block, as recited by claim 11. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner has fully responded to this argument. Ans. 14-16. We agree
with and adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact and analysis, and reach the
same legal conclusions as in that response.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 is sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED
tj