Texas Instruments Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

2019003865 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 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.
14/811,618 07/28/2015 Satish V. Uppathil TI-75203 1063
23494 7590 09/30/2020
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
VUONG, QUOCHIEN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 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 SATISH V. UPPATHIL, NIKOLAUS KLEMMER,
and FIKRET DULGER
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant,1 and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).2

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Texas Instruments
Incorporated. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–20 are pending, claims 9–20 have been allowed by the Examiner,
and dependent claims 2 and 4–7 are objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim (independent claim 1). See Final Act. 1, 5; Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

2
See Final Act. 1, 5; Appeal Br. 2.3 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter relates to “systems and techniques” for
“multiplexing and down-converting multiple reception channels of a front-
end receiver (FER) for use in a broadband transceiver” (Spec. ¶ 4) and more
specifically, integrated circuits comprising: a first mixer delivering a first
down-converted signal by reducing a first carrier frequency of a first radio
frequency (RF) signal to a baseband frequency; a second mixer delivering a
second down-converted signal by reducing a second carrier frequency of a
second RF signal to a baseband frequency; and a convergent node that
receives the first down-converted signal when the first mixer is selected, and
receives the second down-converted signal when the second mixer is
selected. See Spec. ¶¶ 4–9; Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An integrated circuit comprising:
a first input port configured to receive a first radio
frequency (RF) signal having a first carrier frequency;
a second input port configured to receive a second RF
signal having a second carrier frequency;
a first mixer coupled with the first input port, the first
mixer having a first output lead configured to deliver a first

3 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed July 28, 2015
(claiming benefit of US 62/033,403 (filed Aug. 5, 2014)); Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”), filed Dec. 18, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed
Apr. 22, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”), mailed Oct. 29, 2018; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Feb. 26, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

3
down-converted signal by reducing the first carrier frequency of
the first RF signal to a baseband frequency;
a second mixer coupled with the second input port, the
second mixer having a second output lead configured to deliver
a second down-converted signal by reducing the second carrier
frequency of the second RF signal to the baseband frequency;
and
a convergent node coupled with the first output lead and
the second output lead, the convergent node receiving the first
down-converted signal only when the first mixer is selected,
and the convergent node receiving the second down-converted
signal only when the second mixer is selected.
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App’x.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Abdelgany et al.
(“Abdelgany”)
US 7,092,676 B2 Aug. 15, 2006
REJECTION4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abdelgany. See Final Act. 3–5.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as dependent
claims 3 and 8) as being anticipated by Abdelgany. See Final Act. 3–5; Ans.
4–5. Appellant contends that Abdelgany does not disclose the disputed

4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 102. Because the present application
has an effective filing date (Aug. 5, 2014) after the AIA’s effective date, this
decision refers 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

4
limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–3. Specifically,
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner misconstrues Abdelgany,
in that Abdelgany teaches alternate embodiments of down-conversion to an
intermediate frequency and down-conversion to a baseband frequency—“the
Examiner suggested that the system as shown in [Abdelgany’s] FIG. 3 could
have been modified to perform ‘direct conversion’ to ‘baseband signals’”
(Appeal Br. 4); however, Abdelgany “specifically teaches the direct
baseband down-conversion to be performed by the ‘alternative
embodiments’ as shown in FIGS. 7–11, but not the embodiments as shown
in FIG. 3” (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant further contends that the “embodiment
as shown in FIG. 3 is not, and cannot be used, for direct down-conversion”
(Appeal Br. 5) because “the system as shown in FIGS. 7–11 does not . . .
share the same circuit configuration as the system in FIG. 3” (Appeal Br. 6).
See Appeal Br. 4–7; Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Abdelgany (see col. 8, l. 14–col. 12, l. 37; col. 17, ll. 5–12; Figs. 3, 7–11) do
not explicitly or inherently describe the display functionality required by
Appellant’s claim 1. Specifically, Abdelgany describes a receiver (24)
including two mixers (CDMA receive downconverter mixer (96) and GSM
receive downconverter mixer (172)) that down-convert radio-frequency (RF)
signals to intermediate-frequency (IF) signals. See Abdelgany, col. 8, l. 42–
col. 9, l. 14; col. 10, l. 67–col. 11, l. 42; Fig. 3. The IF output of the mixers
is filtered and passed to a switch (first receive IF switch (206)). See
Abdelgany, col. 9, ll. 4–14; col. 11, ll. 29–42; Fig. 3. The intermediate-
frequency information signal (Receive IF information signal (34)) is then
sent to the demodulator (28) to produce base band information signals (120).
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

5
See Abdelgany, col. 9, ll. 15–30; col. 11, ll. 47–64; Fig. 3. Abdelgany does
not describe the mixers of this embodiment (Fig, 3) directly down-
converting radio-frequency signals to baseband signals. The Examiner relies
on Abdelgany’s disclosure that “FIGS. 3–6 illustrate embodiments . . . which
utilize modulation to, and demodulation from, an IF frequency, in alternative
embodiments direct conversion may be employed” where “receive RF
information signals are down[-]converted and demodulated directly to
baseband.” Abdelgany, col. 17, ll. 5–11; see Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
Abdelgany describes these alternate embodiments (alternate transceiver
circuits), which “utilize a direct launch technique” (Abdelgany, col. 17, ll.
14–15) in Figures 7–11. See Abdelgany, col. 17, ll. 5–16. In particular,
Abdelgany’s Figures 10A–10D, 11, and 12 illustrate “a multi-mode
transceiver 10 that receives RF signal transmissions and generates baseband
signals” (Abdelgany, col. 20, ll. 61–63) where the transceiver (10) includes
an integrated receiver (1000) that performs direct down-conversion and a
demodulator (1028) to produce quadrature information (baseband) signals
(IQ signals). See Abdelgany, col. 20, l. 61– col. 23, l. 63; Figs. 7–11.
The Examiner has not shown, in a single embodiment, mixers
performing direct down-conversion coupled to a convergent node (as recited
in claim 1). At best, the Examiner has shown two distinct embodiments that
must be combined in order to disclose the recited features. As pointed out
by Appellant, the transceiver of Abdelgany’s Figure 3 does not perform
direct down-conversion and none of the transceivers depicted in Figures 7–
11 include a convergent node. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br. 2–3. As
further pointed out by Appellant, anticipation requires that the identical
elements be arranged as in the claim. See Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 2
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

6
(citing In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Verdegaal Bros. v. Union
Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); MPEP § 2131).
To anticipate a prior art reference must “disclose all elements of the
claim within the four corners of the document, and it must disclose those
elements arranged as in the claim.” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878
F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Alternately, “a reference can anticipate a claim even if it does not expressly
spell out all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person
of skill in the art, reading the reference, would at once envisage the claimed
arrangement or combination.” Id. (internal quotations and citations
omitted). The Examiner has not provided a reference that discloses the
disputed features in a single embodiment as recited in claim 1, nor has the
Examiner provided a sufficiently persuasive explanation of how one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would at once envisage how to combine the
disparate embodiments.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Abdelgany anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
Claims 3 and 8 depend from and stand with claim 1. Accordingly,
Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of representative independent claim 1 and we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 8.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3,
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 8.
Appeal 2019-003865
Application 14/811,618

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8 102(a)(2) Abdelgany 1, 3, 8
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 8

REVERSED