Ex Parte Ding et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 7, 201813949345 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/949,345 07/24/2013 23494 7590 09/11/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Lei Ding 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. TI-73578 2961 EXAMINER TORRES, JUAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2636 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/11/2018 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 LEI DING, RAHMI HEZAR, and ZIGANG YANG Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. The claims are directed to circuits and methods for reducing the amplitude of complex signals. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of crest factor reduction in a first signal having I and Q components, the method comprising: delaying the I component; detecting that a peak in the I component exceeds a predetermined threshold; determining an amplitude of the I component at the peak in the I component; in response to detecting that the peak in the I component exceeds the predetermined threshold, generating a second signal such that an amplitude of the second signal is a function of the determined amplitude of the I component at the peak in the I component, and such that the amplitude of the second signal is independent of an amplitude of the Q component of the first signal; and reducing an amplitude of the peak in the I component in response to detecting that the peak in the I component exceeds the predetermined threshold, 1 Appellants indicated that Texas Instruments Inc. is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2). 2 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 in which reducing the amplitude of the peak in the I component includes adding the second signal to the delayed I component. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Schell (hereinafter "Schell") Sundstrom US 2008/0304594 Al Dec. 11, 2008 US 2008/0150625 Al June 26, 2008 (hereinafter "Sundstrom") REJECTI0NS 2 The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-8, 10-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) as being anticipated over Schell. (Final Act. 7-8). 2 As a preliminary matter, the Final Action, mailed Sept. 3, 2015, from which this appeal is taken, included a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over claims 9 and 21 as unpatentable over Schell in view of Sundstrom (Final Act. 26). Further, the same Final Action included a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over claims 23 and 26 as unpatentable over Schell. (Final Act. 27). Finally, the Final Action also included a 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection over claims 23 and 26 as unpatentable over Sundstrom. (Final Act. 28). In the prosecution history, Appellants presented an amendment, filed Nov. 13, 2015, canceling dependent claims 9, 21, 23, and 26. The Examiner entered this amendment (see Advisory Act., mailed 9/24/2015). As a result, we do not reach these rejections presented in the Final Action as they are moot, and we, therefore, limit our review to the outstanding prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l). 3 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 Claims 1-22, 24, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated over Sundstrom. 3 (Final Act. 16). ANALYSIS 35 US.C. § 102(a)(l) over Schell Claims 1, 10, 22, and 25 With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Schell for teaching: in response to detecting that the peak in the I component exceeds the predetermined threshold generating a second signal such that an amplitude of the second signal is a function of the determined amplitude of the I component at the peak of the I component such that the amplitude of the second signal is independent of an amplitude of the Q component of the first signal [Schell abstract, Fig. 12, ,r 56, block 1202)]. (Final Act. 8). Specifically, the Examiner finds Schell teaches the "correction pulses are injected into the unmodified I and Q signals in the main signal path, via the first and second summers 1212 and 1214, thereby producing the modified I' and Q' signals having reduced peak-to-RMS amplitude ratios" and the "pulse generators 1208 generate a signal at the time of the peak with different sign" (Ans. 25)( emphasis omitted). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over Schell. Specifically, Appellants contend Schell, in the cited portion, makes no mention that the correction pulse has an amplitude that varies, much less varies as a function of a determined amplitude of I component at a peak of the I component (Reply Br. 3 We note that claims 9 and 21 were canceled in the Amendment filed Nov. 13, 2015. 4 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 2)( emphasis added). Further, Appellants argue Schell teaches the correction pulse generators (1208) inject correction pulses in either I or Q for times when amplitudes exceed a predetermined threshold and not at a peak amplitude. (App. Br. 6). Appellants further contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over Schell because the Examiner found that Schell teaches the amplitude of the second signal is independent of the amplitude of the Q component of the first signal. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 23-24). However, Appellants contend the phase angle of the complex modulated baseband single (z(t)) in Schell is dependent on both the I and Q components of the based band signal, as stated in Equation 6. (App. Br. 7). We have reviewed the cited portions of Schell for "the amplitude of the second signal is independent of the amplitude of the Q component of the first signal," limitations as recited. We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Figure 12 may be used to implement a different embodiment of a quadrature domain peak-to-RMS reduction block for Fig. 11. Schell discloses Figure 12 is modified from Figure 2 by adding a first and second pulse injector, similar to Figure 2 (Schell ,r 56). Schell teaches in paragraph 56, first sentence, that a polar modulation transmitter 1100 is another embodiment. As described, both I and Q are generated by the base band processor (not shown) (i1i151-52) and fed into the quadrature domain peak- to-RMS reduction block 1102, which is expanded to show internals in Fig. 12. Within Figure 12, I and Qare signals that are independent of one another. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants that the signals of I and Q are dependent on one another, as the teachings in Schell relied upon by the Examiner are different than those argued by Appellants. 5 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 However, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Schell discloses the disputed claim limitations. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628,631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Claim 1 requires that "in response to detecting a peak in the I component exceeding a threshold, then generating a second signal such that an amplitude of the second signal is a function of the determined amplitude of the I component at the peak in the I component." In addition, "[e]ach and every element of the claimed invention"' must be disclosed either explicitly or inherently~ and the elements must be "arranged or combined in the same way as in the 1 · - "c' r - C'' - ··o· -C' ·, i 1· ,,,,, 1 1 ·~14 c·C' 1 c,· ')009· · · 1··,· c mm. ~1ee _ n re ,wave, )6 r.-JC -1_1 _ 1 -'- · rec. -.ir. L _ ) 1 cltmg '-ll 1 iff,; P, (~o " z·--0 11 it-h Go! n1·ne f>J1c•,·m ,, !11,, 4· 71 ·c- ,, ,-1 1 1 .c9 1· ,, 7:::. ri:::e ··1 C'1·r _, ,. ___. CJL , . v. __ .c .. .. . 1 . u. 1. . . • .• ._, • , l.- • , , r . -1,. _ __ u ~ -1 . _, , f' lL j • 2006); Net 1vlonev1N, Inc. v. VeriSien, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. / , >' • '--· • / ' 2008); in re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832----33 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We agree with Appellants that Schell makes no mention, in the cited portion or Figure 12, of generating a second signal with an amplitude that is a function of the amplitude of the I component, in response to detecting a peak in I exceeding the threshold. (Reply Br. 2). Rather, we find Schell discloses that once a signal amplitude exceeds the threshold, then correction pulses are generated regardless of the peak of I or as a function of the determined amplitude of I at the peak in the I component. (Reply Br. 2-3)(Schell ,r 56). Thus, each and every element of the independent claim 1 has not been disclosed within Schell, and Schell does not teach each element arranged as claimed. We therefore are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown that Schell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1, and we do not sustain the Examiners rejection of claim 1. 6 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 Appellants similarly argue the patentability of independent claims 10, 22, and 25 for the same reasons. Because independent claims 10, 22, and 25 contain similar limitations, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 10, 22, and 25 for the same reasons discussed above. Claims 2---8, 11-20, 24, and 27 Appellant argues claims 2-8, 11-20, 24 and 27 are novel over Schell for at least the same reasons as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 10, 22, and 25. (App. Br. 9-10). Because we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 22 and 25, we are also persuaded of error regarding dependent claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27, as anticipated by Schell, for the same reasons as above. 35 USC§ 102(a)(l) over Sundstrom Claims 1, 10, 22, and 25 With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies on Sundstrom to teach the limitations of : in response to detecting that the peak in the I component exceeds the predetermined threshold generating a second signal such that an amplitude of the second signal is a function of the determined amplitude of the I component at the peak of the I component such that the amplitude of the second signal is independent of an amplitude of the Q component of the first signal [ Abstract, Fig. 3 block 20, paragraphs [0041 ]-[0048] and Fig. 15 paragraphs [0080]-[0087]]. (Final Act. 16). Specifically, the Examiner finds Sundstrom teaches [T]he pulse generation circuit 24 includes a cancellation pulse selector 34 and an x-path pulse generator 36, where "x" connotes 7 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 I for the in-phase (real) path and connotes "Q" for the quadrature (imaginary) path. The pulse generation circuit 24 generates cancellation pulses in Cartesian coordinates ( cancellation pulse and Q cancellation pulse pairs) and, as noted the cancellation circuit 26 combines these cancellation pulses with a correspondingly delayed version of the signal to reduce signal peaks and therefore reduce the PAR of the signal. (Ans. 58-59)(emphases omitted). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l) over Sundstrom because Sundstrom does not generate correction pulses in response to detecting peaks of individual I and Q components of an input signal. (App. Br. 26). Rather, Appellants argue Sundstrom detects the peaks using a peak detection algorithm that avoids calculation of the I and Q waveforms. (App. Br. 26). We disagree with the Examiner's finding that Sundstrom discloses the disputed claim limitations. Claim 1 requires that in response to detecting a peak in the I component exceeding a threshold, then generating a second signal such that an amplitude of the second signal is a function of the determined amplitude of the I component at the peak in the I component. We agree with Appellants that Sundstrom does not disclose the I component is independent of the Q component. (App. Br. 30). Further, we agree with Appellants that Sundstrom does not generate correction pulses in response to detecting peaks of I and Q components of a signal exceeding a threshold. (App. Br. 30). We further agree with Appellants that "the peak detection is done in a peak detection algorithm that avoids calculating the I and Q peak waveforms." (App. Br. 30). Thus, Sundstrom does not teach each element in the claim and as arranged within the claim. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not shown that Sundstrom anticipates all the 8 Appeal2016-005902 Application 13/949,345 limitations of claim 1, and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 over Sundstrom. Appellants present similar arguments to independent claims 10, 22, and 25. Because independent claims 10, 22, and 25 contain similar limitations, we also reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 10, 22, and 25, for the same reasons discussed above. Claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27 over Sundstrom Appellants argue dependent claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27 are novel over Sundstrom for at least the same reasons as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 10, 22, and 25. (App. Br. 9-10). Because we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 22, and 25, we are also persuaded of error regarding claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27. Thus, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-8, 11-20, 24, and 27, as anticipated by Sundstrom, for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) over Schell, and we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10-20, 22, 24, 25, and 27 as anticipated over Sundstrom under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l). REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation