Maxlinear, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 11, 2020

14155120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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.
14/155,120 01/14/2014 Curtis Ling 26466US02 9321
23446 7590 08/11/2020
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
TIMORY, KABIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2020 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CURTIS LING and RAJASEKHAR PULLELA
____________________

Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,1201
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–22, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Maxlinear, Inc. (Appeal Br.
1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 14, 2014,
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 18, 2018, the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 31, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed December 26, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February
20, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods and systems for communication
using a multi-standard receiver that receives an input radio frequency (RF)
signal comprising at least two RF signals of different communication
standards, separates the input RF signal into two signals based on their
different communication standards, and applies configurable gain levels to
equalize magnitudes of the two signals. (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for communication, the method comprising:
in a radio frequency (RF) receiver in an electronic
device:
receiving an input radio frequency (RF) signal
comprising at least two RF signals of different
communication standards from a single antenna or wired
connection;
separating the input RF signal into at least two RF
signals based on their different communication standards;
amplifying the at least two RF signals by applying
configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes,
wherein said configurable gain levels are based on
measured signal strengths of said at least two RF signals;
filtering the amplified RF signals utilizing a
configurable filter for each amplified RF signal;
combining the filtered RF signals to a single RF
output signal utilizing a combiner; and
converting the single output RF signal to a digital
signal utilizing a single time-interleaved analog-to-digital
converter (ADC) coupled to the combiner.

(Appeal Br. 20–23 (Claims App.).)

Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

3
REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Corral
(US 2012/0140804 A1, published June 7, 2012) (“Corral”), Aggarwal et al.
(US 2013/0335163 A1, published Dec. 19, 2013) (“Aggarwal”), and
Shahzad Saleem, Adaptive Blind Calibration of Gain and Timing
Mismatches in a Time-Interleaved ADC - A Performance Analysis, 2012
IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology
Conference Proceedings 2672–77 (2012) (“Saleem”). (Final Act. 5–14.)

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–14, 18, 19, 21, and 22
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Corral teaches separating
an input RF signal into at least two RF signals based on their different
communication standards, and amplifying the at least two RF signals by
applying configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes, as claimed.
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–6.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Corral describes
splitting a multi-band signal into two or more independent frequency band
signals and “adjusting the gain associated with each of the frequency
band signals,” and “the Examiner considers ‘adjusting the gain associated
with each of the frequency band signals’ to be [the claimed] ‘equalizing
magnitudes’ within the broad meaning of the term.” (Ans. 4–5 (citing
Corral ¶¶ 15, 18).) We do not agree.
We agree with Appellant that Corral does not teach or suggest
amplifying at least two RF signals of different communication standards, by
applying configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes, as recited in
claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7–10.) As Appellant explains, Corral teaches
Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

4
balancing signal-to-noise ratios to maximize the data rate, which “is simply
not the same as equalizing signal magnitudes.” (Id. at 8–9.) Particularly,
Corral “explicitly teaches configuring different signal levels” whereby the
highband signal’s level is lower than (e.g., 30 dB below) the lowband
signal’s level. (Id. at 9–10 (citing Corral ¶¶ 14, 18–19); see also Reply Br.
2–3.) Thus, Coral teaches “explicitly the opposite of equalizing magnitudes,
and there is no cited text that does disclose equalization of magnitudes.”
(Appeal Br. 9.)
We further agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of
the claimed term equalize their magnitudes to mean “adjusting the gain
associated with each of the frequency bands” is “not a reasonable
interpretation of the term . . . because it says absolutely nothing about
‘equalizing’ anything, but merely adjusting gain in different frequency
bands.” (Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed term
equalizing magnitudes as reading on Corral’s generic gain adjustment is
unduly broad and disregards Appellant’s Specification and the
understanding of a skilled artisan.3 (Id. at 2–3.)
As the Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of
Aggarwal and Saleem cure the above-noted deficiencies of Corral, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent
claim 8 and dependent claim 18 reciting the same equalizing limitation as
claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7, 9–

3 Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion (that Appellant’s Specification “does
not provide any specific teaching and description of ‘equalize
magnitudes,’” see Ans. 6), the Specification provides that signals’
magnitudes are equalized when signals’ strengths become “roughly equal”
or “approximately equal.” (See Spec. ¶¶ 25, 28, 33, and 42.)
Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

5
14, 19, 21, and 22, depending from one of claims 1, 8, and 18. Because the
above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the rejections of dependent claims
3, 4, 10, and 11, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s
arguments as to the rejections of claims 3, 4, 10, and 11. (See Appeal Br.
12–13.)

Rejection of Claims 15–17 and 20
Appellant submits the same arguments for independent claim 15 as for
claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 6–10.) Independent claim 15, however, does not
require equalizing magnitudes as recited in claim 1 discussed supra. Claim
15 merely recites that “gain levels of said variable gain stages are configured
based on measured signal strengths of RF signals at said outputs of said
diplexer.”
We are also unpersuaded that the remaining limitations of claim 15
are not taught or suggested by the cited art. (See Appeal Br. 11.) In
particular, Appellant argues the cited art “does not explicitly or implicitly
teach receiving at least two RF signals from a single antenna or wired
connection.” (Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3–4.) As the Examiner
finds, however, Corral teaches a diplexer (signal splitter) coupled to a single
antenna or wired connection providing RF signals as required by claim 15.
(Ans. 8–10 (citing Corral ¶¶ 13, 19, 48, Abstract, Fig. 6); Final Act. 6 (citing
Corral ¶ 43).) For example, Corral teaches a signal splitter (splitting unit
122 or 602) coupled to a single antenna or wired connection (Corral’s
antenna or powerline communication system). (See Corral ¶¶ 13, 17 (“the
transmitting device 102 is a powerline communication device”), 19 (“On
receiving the multi-band RF signal from the transmitting device 102, the
Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

6
receiver band splitting unit 122 splits the received multi-band signal into a
highband signal . . . and a lowband signal”), 43 (“transmitting device 102
can also comprise . . . an antenna to transmit the multi-band RF signal”),
Figs. 1 and 6.)
In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 15, and dependent claim 20 for which no separate
arguments for patentability are provided.
Appellant separately argues dependent claims 16 and 17, reciting
“said diplexer [of claim 15] is off-chip” (claim 16) and “said diplexer is
integrated on said chip [carrying the RF receiver of claim 15]” (claim 17).
(Appeal Br. 15–16.) In particular, Appellant argues Corral’s paragraph 56
(cited by the Examiner) does not mention components being off-chip or on-
chip. (See id.) However, Corral’s paragraph 56 mentions hardware/circuit
embodiments, exemplified at paragraphs 58–59 by an “electronic device
800” including “a processor unit 802” and functionalities implemented by,
inter alia, “a band-splitting unit 822” (e.g., diplexer). (See Corral ¶¶ 56, 58–
59.) Paragraph 59 further provides “[a]ny one of the above-described
functionalities may be partially (or entirely) implemented in hardware
and/or on the processor unit 802. . . . in logic implemented in the processor
unit 802, in a co-processor on a peripheral device or card, etc.,” thereby
teaching and suggesting a diplexer positioned off-chip or on-chip as required
by claims 16 and 17. (See Corral ¶ 59 (emphases added).) In light of the
above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 17.

Appeal 2019-002704
Application 14/155,120

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14, 18, 19, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–17 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103(a) Corral, Aggarwal,
Saleem
15–17, 20 1–14, 18,
19, 21, 22
Overall Outcome 15–17, 20 1–14, 18,
19, 21, 22

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-IN-PART