Ex Parte Ding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 7, 2018

13949345 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 7, 2018)

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