Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2021

2020003984 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2021)

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.
16/007,087 06/13/2018 Shota Ishihara MURATA-56115US1 3547
116 7590 05/21/2021
PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/21/2021 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):
patdocket@pearne.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOTA ISHIHARA, YUSUKE SHIMAMUNE, TAKASHI
SOGA, FUMINORI MORISAWA, SEIKO ONO, and TETSUAKI
ADACHI
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JULIA HEANEY, and
SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 21. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Murata
Manufacturing Co. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims on appeal are directed to a power amplification module.
Claims 1 and 21, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A power amplification module comprising:
an amplification transistor that has a constant power
supply voltage supplied to a collector of the amplification
transistor, that has a bias current supplied to a base of the
amplification transistor and that amplifies an input signal input
to the base of the amplification transistor and outputs an
amplified signal from the collector of the amplification
transistor;
a first current source that outputs a first current that
corresponds to a level control voltage that controls a signal level
of the amplified signal; and
a bias transistor that has the first current supplied to a
collector of the bias transistor and a bias control voltage
connected to a base of the bias transistor, and that outputs the
bias current from an emitter of the bias transistor.

21. The power amplification module according to Claim 1,
wherein the bias control voltage and the level control voltage are
independent.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ishimaru US 2009/0212863 A1 Aug. 27, 2009
Okamura US 2012/0306579 A1 Dec. 6, 2012

Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
3
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
21 112(a)
21 112(b)
1, 2 102(a)(1) Ishimaru
21 102(a)(1) Okamura

OPINION
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner finds that claim 21 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112(b) because it is not clear whether the recitation “wherein the bias control
voltage and the level control voltage are independent” refers to the voltages
as being independent from one another, or that the voltages are independent
voltage sources. Final Act. 3; Answer 7.
Appellant argues that the rejection should be reversed because a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the bias control voltage
(V1) and level control voltage (Vramp) to be independent of each other in
light of the Specification, which explains that bias control voltage is constant
because it is dependent on control voltage Vcnt; Vramp, in contrast, is a signal
that is ramped from a first voltage to a second voltage, and then back to the
first voltage after a period of time, and is used to control an output of current
source I1. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. 6:2–8, 10:24–25:1, Fig. 3). Appellant
further argues “the plain language of the claim recites that the voltages are
independent.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that the claim does not
necessarily recite these voltages are voltage sources or otherwise recite
“voltage sources.” Id.
In determining whether a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
112(b), we look to whether those skilled in the art would understand what is
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
4
claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics,
Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, in light of the figures and written description of the original disclosure,
a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the bias control
voltage and the level control voltage are independent of each other. Figure
4 shows the bias control voltage (V1) and the level control voltage (Vramp) as
being separate, where V1 is an output from bias control circuit 440 and Vramp
is an input into first current source 450. Spec. 10:25–11:3. As discussed
above, in operation V1 is constant, while Vramp changes to control the
transmission signal. Spec. 7:17–25, 10:25, Fig. 3. Thus, the Specification
shows that the bias control voltage and the level control voltage are
independent of one another.
The Examiner’s determination that “the bias control voltage and level
control voltage are independent” is indefinite does not properly consider
how this limitation is described in the Specification and the words of the
claim itself. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.

Written Description Rejection
The Examiner determines that the Specification lacks written
description support for the recitation in claim 21 that “the bias control
voltage and the level control voltage are independent” because the
Specification does not explicitly recite that claim language. Final Act. 3,
Answer 6. The Examiner finds that Figure 4 shows that the bias control
voltage (V1) is generated by the bias control circuit 440 based on the control
voltage (Vcnt), but the original disclosure does not describe how the level
control voltage (Vramp) and Vcnt are generated. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner
finds that because Vcnt and Vramp may or may not relate to one another, V1
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
5
and Vramp may or may not depend upon one another. Final Act. 3, Answer
6.
Appellant argues, as discussed above, that the bias control voltage is
an output of the bias control circuit and depends upon the control voltage,
while the level control voltage is used to separately control the output of the
current source. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec. 10:24–11:1). Appellant further
argues that literal support is not required in order for a claim to satisfy the
written description requirement. Reply Br. 2 (citing MPEP § 2163.02).
The fundamental factual inquiry underlying a determination of
unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is whether the specification conveys
with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date
sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See,
e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The Examiner has the burden of explaining why the specification would not
have conveyed to a person of ordinary skill that the inventors had possession
of the claimed invention. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 24 (CCPA 1971).
The claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the
specification in order for the specification to satisfy the written description
requirement. In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973).
Here, the Examiner has not met the burden of explaining adequately
why the specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
The Examiner’s finding that Vcnt and Vramp may or may not relate to one
another, and therefore V1 and Vramp may or may not depend upon one
another disregards the Specification description of the bias control voltage
(V1) and the level control voltage (Vramp) as being separate, where V1 is an
output from bias control circuit 440 and Vramp is an input into first current
source 450. Spec. 10:25–11:3, Figure 4. As discussed above, the written
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
6
description describes V1 as depending upon the control voltage (Vcnt) and as
a constant output from the bias control circuit, while Vramp is separately
ramped from a first voltage to a second voltage and back. Appeal Br. 5
(citing Fig. 3, Spec. 6:2–8, 26). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 21 as lacking written description support.

Anticipation of Claims 1 and 2 by Ishimaru
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Figure 1 of Ishimaru discloses a first current
source (133) that outputs a first current (current through 133) that
corresponds to a level control voltage (135) that controls a signal level of the
amplified signal (signal at the collector for amplifier 103). Final Act. 4. The
Examiner further finds that Ishimaru’s power amplifier discloses additional
elements that correspond to the elements of claims 1 and 2. Id. at 4–5 (citing
Ishimaru Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“current source,” encompasses resistor 133 because there is current flowing
across resistor 133. Answer 8. The Examiner determines that “first current
source” can be any source of current, i.e., it can be a variable current or a
constant current. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that “current source” is a term of art and Appellant’s
Specification uses it in this manner. Appeal Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a “current source”
is a circuit element that provides a constant current regardless of the voltage
across it. Id. at 6–7 (citing Cirovic, Basic Electronics 12 (1979);
Wikipedia). Appellant further argues that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “‘current source’ is not simply an element through which a
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
7
current flows or that induces a current to flow” (id. at 7), and that the
Specification describes a current source as generating a constant current and
as an element distinct from resistors. Id. (citing Spec. 11:1–7). Appellant
further argues that because the Specification describes current sources and
resistors as separate elements, a “current source” should be interpreted as
distinct from a resistor. Id. at 8 (citing In re Smith Int’l, Inc., Appeal No.
2016-2302 (Fed. Cir. 2017), slip op. at 12).
Based on its claim interpretation argument, Appellant argues that
Ishimaru does not disclose a “first current source that outputs a first current
that corresponds to a level control voltage that controls a signal level of the
amplified signal,” because resistor 133 is not a “current source.” Appeal Br.
6.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Claim 1
describes “current source” functionally (“outputs a first current that
corresponds to a level control voltage that controls a signal level of the
amplified signal”) rather than as having any particular structure. The portion
of the Specification relied upon by Appellant (Spec. 11:1–7) does not
describe a “current source” as “generating a constant current” nor does it
describe a “current source” as an element distinct from a resistor. In fact,
the Specification describes “current source 450” which includes, inter alia,
resistors R1, R2, and R3. Spec. 12:1–4; Fig. 9. Based on this record we,
therefore, determine that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “current
source” encompasses any source of current. Applying that interpretation, we
determine a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that resistor 133 of Ishimaru corresponds to a first current source
as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
8
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires a rate of change of
the first current is larger when the level control voltage is at a second level,
than when it is at a first level. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner finds that the
operation of Ishimaru’s Figure 1 discloses this limitation because of Ohm’s
law and the impedance of the inductance of the lines connecting voltage
source 135 to resistor 133 and bipolar transistor 107. Final Act. 4–5.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rationale is improper because
according to Ohm’s law, the rate of change of the current would be constant,
but claim 2 describes a changing rate of change of the current, at distinct
voltage levels. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant further argues that because the
“current source” relied upon by the Examiner is merely resistor 133, which a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to have negligible
inductance, nothing in the current source would cause the claimed change in
the “first current.” Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 6. Appellant further argues that
Ishimaru does not disclose a changing rate of change of the current at
distinct voltage levels, as recited in claim 2. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner explains (see Ans. 13), even when inductance is negligible, Ohm’s
law defines the relationship between the voltage and current in the operation
of Ishimaru’s Figure 1, such that the rate of change of the first current
changes depending on the level of the level control voltage. Also, as the
Examiner finds, “the rate of change di/dt = V/L, so if V is higher than di/dt
is higher.” Final Act. 5. Appellants have not sufficiently explained why the
claimed relationship would be exempt from this physical law. Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection of claim 2.

Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
9

102(a)(1) Anticipation of claim 21 by Okamura
The Examiner finds that Okamura discloses a power amplifier
including a first current source (L7 in Figure 1) that outputs a first current
corresponding to a level control voltage that controls a signal level of the
amplified signal of an amplification transistor. Final Act. 5; Answer 14–15.
The Examiner further finds that Okamura discloses level control voltage
(Vcb) and bias control voltage (Vref) are independent. Final Act. 5–6
(citing Okamura Figs. 1, 2, 8, and 9); Answer 16.
Appellant argues that Okamura does not disclose a “current source”
based on Appellant’s contention that a “current source” should be
interpreted as a circuit element that provides a constant current regardless of
the voltage across it. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues that Okamura
does not disclose that voltages Vcb and Vref are independent, although they
are distinct inputs. Id. at 10–11. Appellant also argues that Okamura does
not expressly or implicitly disclose the voltages are independent, because
silence is not an implicit disclosure. Reply Br. 7.
As discussed above in connection with Appellant’s argument against
the anticipation rejection over Ishimaru, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s argument for interpretation of “current source.” We, however,
agree with Appellant that Okamura does not support the Examiner’s finding
that “Figure 1 of Okamura et al. teaches that the bias control voltage (Vref)
and the level control voltage (Vcb) are independent.” See Final Act. 6.
Okamura is silent as to the relationship between Vref and Vcb, and the
Examiner does not explain how Okamura discloses that they are
independent. Accordingly, we find that a preponderance of evidence does
Appeal 2020-003984
Application 16/007,087
10
not support the finding of claim 21 as anticipated by Okamura, and reverse
the rejection.
Because the Examiner did not reject claim 1 over Okamura, we defer
to the Examiner to determine the patentability of claim 1 over Okamura.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
We reverse the rejections of claim 21 as indefinite under
§ 112(b) and as lacking written description under § 112(a).
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2 as anticipated by Ishimaru.
We reverse the rejection of claim 21 as anticipated by Okamura.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21 112(a) Written Description 21
21 112(b) Indefiniteness 21
1, 2 102(a)(1) Ishimaru 1, 2
21 102(a)(1) Okamura 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 2 21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART