10603302 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2012)

Ex Parte Wu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 11, 2012

10603302 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte SONG WU and RICHARD GU ____________________ Appeal 2009-012436 Application 10/603,302 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E, NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012436 Application 10/603,302 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A communication receiver apparatus, comprising: an input for receiving from a communication transmitter apparatus an input analog communication signal; a feedforward equalizer coupled to said input for producing in response to said input analog communication signal an equalized analog communication signal; a sampler coupled to said feedforward equalizer for producing digital communication information in response to said equalized analog communication signal; a feedback equalizer coupled between said sampler and said feedforward equalizer for controlling said feedforward equalizer in response to said digital communication information; wherein said feedback equalizer includes a digital-to-analog conversion portion having an input coupled to said sampler for receiving said digital communication information, said digital-to- analog conversion portion having an output coupled to said feedforward equalizer; wherein said digital-to-analog conversion portion includes a plurality of digital-to-analog converters having respective inputs coupled to said sampler and having respective outputs coupled to said feedforward equalizer. Appeal 2009-012436 Application 10/603,302 3 Rejections on Appeal 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sawada (US 2003/0058930 A1) and Yang (US 6,469,988 B1). The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Sawada, Yang, and Peon (US 7,027,499 B2). Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because: Claim 1 includes " ... said digital-to-analog conversion portion includes a plurality of digital-to-analog converters ... having respective outputs coupled to said feedforward equalizer...". U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0058930 and U.S. Patent No. 6,469,988 do not show, teach, or suggest the above recited limitations of claim 1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0058930 and U.S. Patent No. 6,469,988 do not teach how the plurality of digital to analog converters (DACs) in U.S. Patent No. 6,469,988 would be substituted into the device of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0058930 to obtain the device of claim 1. (App. Br. 4). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitation at issue? 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 4, and 6-12. Appeal 2009-012436 Application 10/603,302 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 7)2. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-12 are affirmed. 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 tj 2 We note the typo at line 17 of Answer page 7 where “summer 8” should read “summer 18”.