Ex Parte Yu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2018

15155860 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/155,860 05/16/2016
23446 7590 12/11/2018
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tommy Yu
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.
29326US05 5544
EXAMINER
YU,LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2018 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 TOMMY YU
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860 1
Technology Center 2600
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, 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 11-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Entropic
Communications, LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to "conversion of satellite signals to an
intermediate frequency (IF) for content decoding and selection of data
within satellite signals for content decoding." Spec. ,r 2. Independent claim
11 is directed to a system; and independent claim 21 is directed to a method.
App. Br. 13-14.
Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
11. A system configured to receive a radio frequency
(RF) band, the system comprising:
a first analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to
digitize the RF band; and
a digital channelizer configured to digitally select one or
more content channels from the digitized RF band, where the
digital channelizer comprises:
a demultiplexer configured to sequentially
distribute samples of the digitized RF band to N paths,
an N-points Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
configured to receive the N paths comprising samples of
the digitized RF band,
a plurality of selectors, wherein each selector is
operable to select, among a plurality of outputs of the N-
points FFT, one or more FFT outputs corresponding to a
particular content channel of the one or more content
channels, and
a plurality of digital mixers, each digital mixer
being operable to adjust a frequency of an output of a
corresponding one of the plurality of selectors, wherein the
adjustment is according to a signal from a direct digital
frequency synthesis.
2
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 11, 17-21, and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Hellberg et al. (US 6,611,855 B 1; issued Aug.
26, 2003) ("Hellberg") and Johnson (US 2005/0117071 Al; published June
2, 2005). Final Act. 4.
Claims 12 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hellberg, Johnson, and Robinett (US 2002/0177465 Al;
published Nov. 28, 2002). Final Act. 7.
Claims 13 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hellberg, Johnson, and Stone et al. (US 5,251,218; issued
Oct. 5, 1993) ("Stone '218"). Final Act. 7.
Claims 14 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hellberg, Johnson, and Cyzs (US 5,691,727; issued Nov.
25, 1997). Final Act. 8.
Claims 15 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hellberg, Johnson, Cyzs, and Stone et al. (US 5,058,107;
issued Oct. 15, 1991) ("Stone '107''). Final Act. 9.
Claims 16 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Hellberg, Johnson, and Powell (US 2002/0182762 Al;
published Dec. 5, 2002). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Claims 11-16 and 19-30
Claim 11 recites "the digital channelizer comprises ... a plurality of
digital mixers, each digital mixer being operable to adjust a frequency of an
output of a corresponding one of the plurality of selectors."
3
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
Appellant contends Hellberg' s multiplier block does not teach a
digital mixer operable to adjust a frequency of an output. App. Br. 5; see
Reply Br. 3-7. Specifically, Appellant argues Hellberg' s frequency domain
multiplication does not teach resulting in a different frequency. App. Br. 7-
8; see Reply Br. 3 (in Hellberg, each "frequency domain value is scaled by a
corresponding frequency response value," but "no new frequency values can
be generated."). According to Appellant, "Hellberg's frequency domain
multiplication is equivalent to convolution ( e.g., an FIR filtering operation)
in the time domain," and "results in a time shift," rather than in different
frequencies. App. Br. 7; see App. Br. 9-10. Appellant argues "Hellberg's
multiplier block 434-1 performs filtering and Hellberg's block 440-1
performs additional filtering," and the performed filtering does not teach
how the blocks are "operable to adjust a frequency." App. Br. 6; see Reply
Br. 5-7.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that the claimed adjusting a frequency is taught by
Hellberg's selected bins being multiplied with filter frequency coefficients in
the multiplier block 434-1. Final Act. 5 ( citing Hellberg Fig. 4, col. 4, 11. 1-
35).
The claims do not provide any limiting definition for a digital mixer
that is operable "to adjust a frequency of an output of a corresponding one of
the plurality of selectors." Appellant's Specification provides examples
describing that frequency bands "are mixed down with a LO at 10.5 GHz" or
"another LO appropriate to the requirements of the application can be
utilized." Spec. ,r 47. Neither the claims nor the Specification supports
4
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
Appellant's argument that the claimed "adjust a frequency" requires
changing to a new frequency value. See App. Br. 5, 7; Reply Br. 3, 5.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), Hellberg describes "selected
bins are multiplied with the filter frequency coefficients in multiplier block
434-1." Hellberg col. 4, 11. 25-31. As acknowledged by Appellant,
Hellberg's multiplier block "performs a point-wise multiplication of
frequency domain values with a filter frequency response, and as such each
input frequency domain value is scaled by a corresponding frequency
response value." Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 5.
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the
claimed "each digital mixer being operable to adjust a frequency of an
output of a corresponding one of the plurality of selectors," not requiring
changing to a new frequency value, precludes scaling frequency values as a
type of adjusting frequency values.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 11, as well as the rejections of commensurate independent claim 21,
and dependent claims 12-16, 19, 20, and 22-30, not separately argued. See
App. Br. 10, 12.
Claims 17 and 18
Claim 17 recites "the output of each digital mixer is operably coupled
to a combiner."
Appellant contends Hellberg does not teach adding the de-
channelizer's combiner to the channelizer, and therefore there is no mapping
of Hellberg's combiner (de-channelizer) to the digital mixers (channelizer).
App. Br. 11.
5
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Specifically, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Hellberg teaches the outputs of mixers are
provided to a combiner. Final Act. 6.
As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Hellberg's multiplier block that multiplies filter frequency coefficients to the
selected bins teaches the claimed digital mixers operable to adjust
frequencies of the outputs of selectors. As cited with regard to independent
claim 11, upon which dependent 17 depends, Hellberg teaches that "selected
bins are multiplied with the filter frequency coefficients in multiplier block
434-1," an "IDFT 436-1 is then completed on the result of the previous
multiplication," and the "blocks output from the IDFT 436-1 are transferred
to the overlap block combiner 438-1 where the blocks are combined."
Hellberg col. 4, 11. 25-31. In other words, Hellberg teaches the output from
the multiplier blocks, after completing IDFT, are transferred to a combiner.
Appellant does not persuasively argue or explain how the claimed
digital mixer output operably coupled to a combiner is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Hellberg's multiplier (i.e., digital mixer) output,
after IDFT, being transferred to (i.e., operably coupled) a combiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent
claim 1 7, as well as the rejection of dependent claim 18.
6
Appeal2018-004370
Application 15/155,860
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 11-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7