2018009067 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

Jaiganesh Balakrishnan

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 13, 2020

2018009067 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/323,241 07/03/2014 Jaiganesh Balakrishnan TI-69918.1 4430 23494 7590 07/13/2020 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER LE, LANA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2655 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2020 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAIGANESH BALAKRISHNAN ____________ Appeal 2018-009067 Application 14/323,241 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DAVID C. McKONE, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 24–27, 29, 30, 32–38, 40, 41, and 43–45. Claims 1–23, 28, 39, 46, and 47 are cancelled. Claim 31 is objected to. Claims 42, 48, and 49 are allowed. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2018-009067 Application 14/323,241 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a wireless receiver that filters the baseband signal with a dynamically controllable filter. (Abstract) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 24. A process of operating a wireless receiver, the process comprising selecting a first bandwidth of a low pass filter depending on a first condition of a baseband signal, selecting a second bandwidth of the low pass filter depending on a second condition of the baseband signal, and filtering the baseband signal with the low pass filter. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35–38, 40, 41, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Rao et al. (US 2012/0028594 A1, published Feb. 2, 2012). (Final Act. 2–4.) The Examiner rejected claims 34 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rao. (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rao and North (US 6,118,829, issued Sept. 12, 2000). (Final Act. 5.) Appeal 2018-009067 Application 14/323,241 3 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issue:2 Whether the Examiner erred in finding Rao disclosed the limitation of independent claims 24 and 35, “filtering the baseband signal with the low pass filter.” (Appeal Br. 9–12.) ANALYSIS For the claim requirement, “filtering the baseband signal with the low pass filter,” the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Rao of “Envelope Smoother 150” which is a dynamically adjusted filter that filters the instantaneous envelope energy determined by “Envelope Estimator 140.” (Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 7; Rao Figs. 1, 2, ¶¶ 15–17, 33, 36–39.) However, as Appellant argues, the instantaneous envelope energy is not the baseband signal. (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 2–3.) In Rao, the baseband signal is represented in Figure 1 as “[c]omplex I and Q signals 170 and 180.” (Rao ¶ 14.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained how Envelope Smoother 150 can be considered as filtering the baseband signal with a low pass filter, as required by the claims. Rather, that component filters the instantaneous envelope energy. (Rao ¶¶ 15–16.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 6, 2018); the Reply Brief (filed Sept. 11, 2018); the Final Office Action (mailed July 3, 2017); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed July 13, 2018) for the respective details. Appeal 2018-009067 Application 14/323,241 4 Accordingly, given the record before us, we are constrained to agree with Appellant the Examiner has erred in finding that Rao anticipates independent claims 24 and 35. For the same reason, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 25–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36–38, 40, 41, 44, and 45 as anticipated by Rao, which claims depend from claim 24 or 35. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 34 and 43 as obvious over Rao, or of claims 25 and 26 as obvious over Rao and North, because those rejections are not based on any additional grounds with respect to the claim limitation at issue. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference/Basis Affirmed Reversed 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35–38, 40, 41, 44, 45 102(e) Rao 24–27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35–38, 40, 41, 44, 45 34, 43 103(a) Rao 34, 43 25, 26 103(a) Rao, North 25, 26 Overall Outcome 24–27, 29, 30, 32–38, 40, 41, 43–45 REVERSED