Ex Parte DAUPHINEE

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 2019

14153799 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/153,799 01/13/2014 Leonard DAUPHINEE 49579 7590 04/01/2019 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. 1875.4740004 1148 EXAMINER NGUYEN,LEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2019 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): e-office@stemekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEONARD DAUPHINEE 1 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 2---6 and 9-18. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AV AGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Reply. Br. 2. 2 Dependent claims 21 and 23 were withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner in the Final Action mailed March 28, 2016. Final Act. 2. Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to "improved methods and systems for tuning. More particularly, the disclosure relates to direct sampling tuners. The disclosure can be implemented in, for example, cable modems, satellite set top boxes, cable set top boxes, and the like. The present disclosure reduces or eliminates mixers, SAW filters, and other analog components." Spec. ,r 5. Independent claim 2, reproduced below with the argued limitation in italics, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 2. A tuner, comprising: an amplifier arranged at a front end of the tuner and configured to amplify a radio frequency (RF) signal; a converter, having an input directly coupled to an output of the amplifier, and configured to digitize an entire band of the amplified RF signal, wherein the converter operates at a sampling rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in the entire band of the amplified RF signal; and a digital signal processor coupled to the converter and configured to demodulate multiple channels of the entire band of the amplified RF signal. REJECTIONS and REFERENCES 3 The Examiner rejected claims 2---6, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Kaminski (US 6,678,512 Bl, issued Jan. 13, 2004) and Holt (US 6,504,515 Bl, issued Jan. 7, 2003). 3 The Examiner entered a nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 2---6, 9, 10, and 12-18 in view of claims 1-24 of US 7,522,901. Final Act. 8. The Examiner also entered a nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 11 in view of claims 1-24 of US 7,522,901, Holt, and Jackson. Final Act. 9. Appellant filed a Terminal Disclaimer on August 29, 2016, which was accepted on September 9, 2016. See Reply Br. 12-13. Thus, this 2 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 The Examiner rejected claims 9-12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kaminski, Holt, and Jackson (US 5,592,165, issued Jan. 7, 1997). The Examiner rejected claim14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kaminski, Holt, and Astrachan (US 7,072,632 B2, July 4, 2006). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Kaminski teaches all the recited claim limitations except it "does not explicitly teach that the converter operates at a sampling rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in the entire band of the amplified RF signal." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. The Examiner then finds Holt teaches an "analog-digital-converter samples at a rate to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band." Id. Thus, the Examiner finds, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of Appellant's invention to include the sampling rate of Holt into the tuner of Kaminski to meet the "Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band." Id. The Examiner asserts: There is nowhere in the patent [Kaminski] that teaches the undersampling of the RF signal. In fact, Kaminski's AID sampling rate is twice the signal bandwidth (Nyquist bandwidth). Otherwise, aliasing occurs (Col. 4: 50-60). Second, the claim recites "the entire band of the amplified RF signal". There is nowhere in the claim that recites the carrier signal. rejection, although not specifically withdrawn by the Examiner, is not before us. 3 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 Third, Kaminski teaches that the 400 MHz sampling rate is just an example of the choice of the Nyquist sampling rate which is twice of the selected highest frequency 200 MHz. Final Act. 12. We agree. Appellant contends "Kaminski samples at twice the information signal bandwidth and not the highest frequency in the entire band (Kaminski, 4: 17- 20, '[b ]ecause the signal bandwidth is sampled at least twice the highest frequency component of the information signal, the information signal can be reproduced in the digital domain. '(Emphasis Added))." App. Br. 6-7. Appellant further contends "Kaminski is concerned with sampling at [the] twice the information signal bandwidth 'regardless of the carrier frequency' of the modulated analog signal" (i.e., undersampled) (see Kaminski col 4, 11. 8-13); whereas, Appellant's claim 2 recites that "the converter operates at a sampling rate that is greater than twice the highest frequency in the entire band of the amplified RF signal" (i.e., oversampled). Reply Br. 4 (emphases added). Appellant then asserts the "amplified RF signal [ of the invention] is akin to the carrier frequency of the modulated analog signal" of Kaminski. Id. Therefore, Appellant submits Kaminski' s sampling rate cannot be changed according to Holt's teachings reciting "at a sample rate to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 11-12; Holt col. 4, 11. 53-54. We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Initially, we note Exhibit 1 (App. Br. Evidence App'x), cited by the Examiner, teaches "At this point we can clearly restate the Nyquist criteria: A signal must be sampled at a rate equal to or greater than twice its bandwidth in order to preserve all the signal information." Mixed-Signal and DSP Design Techniques, A Volume in the Analog Devices Series, 21 4 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 (Walt Kester ed., 2003) ("Kester"). Particularly, we agree with the Examiner, Kaminski teaches "[i]f the waveform is sampled at a rate less than twice its signal bandwidth (the Nyquist bandwidth) an undesirable overlapping between the adjacent periodic spectrums can occur ... known as aliasing. Accordingly, the sampling rate is chosen to avoid loss of information due to aliasing." Ans. 9 (quoting Kaminski col. 4, 11. 54--57) ( emphasis and underlining removed). This contradicts Appellant's contention that Kaminski intentionally undersamples these cellular and PCS band frequencies for the aliasing effect. See id. Further, Kaminski teaches there are many different Nyquist zone bandwidths, and specifically, Kaminski's teaching of a Nyquist zone bandwidth at 200M Hz and a Nyquist sampling rate at 400 MHz is an example of oversampling at a selected frequency, contrary to Appellant's assertions otherwise. Id. at 9, 11 (citing Kaminski col. 6, 11. 12-15). We also agree with the Examiner that the sampling rate of Holt can be applied "to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest" in Kaminski. Ans. 11-12. Holt states, in column 4, lines 50-54 relied on by the Examiner, that "output signals of the respective downconverters within the block converter 61 are digitized by respective analog-to-digital converters (ADCs) 71 and 73 (at a sample rate to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal)" (emphasis added). Ans. 12; Final Act. 14. We also agree Kaminski teaches "the signal bandwidth is sampled at [at] least twice the highest frequency component of the information signal (Col. 4: 15-20)," thus it would be an obvious extension to apply the teachings of Holt ("a sample rate to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band" (col 4, 11. 52-54)) to Kaminski to obtain the disputed 5 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 claim limitation, particularly in light of Exhibit 1. Ans. 11-12. Thus, applying a sampling rate as taught by Holt would be consistent with selecting "a Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band." Id. Appellant's further argument that applying the teachings of Holt to Kaminski would result in Kaminski not operating, are unpersuasive. App. Br. 12. As the Examiner finds, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellant's invention to combine the flexibility of selecting different Nyquist frequencies as taught by Kaminski, with the "sampling rate of Holt to meet Nyquist criteria for the highest frequency signal of interest in the band." Ans. 12. With respect to Appellant's additional contention that Kaminski does not teach a converter having an input directly coupled to an output of the amplifier, we do not agree. App. Br. 14--15. The Examiner refers to Kaminski's Figure 1 and column 3, line 66-column 4, line 2, which recites an embodiment where "if a receiver 10 has a single branch 16, the combining arrangement 22 is simply a connection from the antenna 12 through the filter 20 (if required) to the AID converter 24." Ans. 14 ( quoting, with added underlining and bold for emphasis, Kaminski, col. 3, 1. 66-col. 4, 1. 2). Thus, if the filter 20 is not required, Kaminski at least suggests the combining arrangement includes a direct connection from the low noise amplifier LNA to the AID converter as shown in Kaminski's Figure 1 and recited in Appellant's claim 2. Ans. 14. Appellant responds, even if the Examiner is correct, Kaminski would simply be a connection from antenna 12 to AID converter 24, and not between the LNA and the AID converter as claimed. App. Br. 14--15; Reply 6 Appeal2017-007106 Application 14/153,799 Br. 11-12. We do not agree. Appellant appears to ignore the LNA connected between the antenna 12 and the AID converter. We agree with the Examiner, Kaminski's teaching does not exclude the LNA from being directly connected to the AID converter, as Appellant asserts. Ans. 14--15. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 2 and 17 and dependent claims 3---6, 9-16, and 18, for which no substantive arguments were provided. App. Br. 15-17. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-6 and 9-18 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7