Ex Parte Gomez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201211029733 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/029,733 01/05/2005 Ramon A. Gomez 3875.0240001 1153 26111 7590 11/01/2012 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER HU, RUI MENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAMON A. GOMEZ and DONALD G. MCMULLIN ____________ Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18. Claims 19-45 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for enhancing image rejection in communication receivers. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for enhancing image rejection in communications receivers, the method comprising: injecting a test tone signal into a receiver; estimating quadrature error in an in-phase (I) channel and a quadrature (Q) channel of said receiver based on said injecting of said test tone signal into said receiver; adjusting equalizer coefficients to correct said estimated quadrature error in said I channel and said Q channel of said receiver; and correcting an amplitude error and/or a phase error in said I channel and said Q channel based on said adjusting of said equalizer coefficients. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Kuenen US 2004/0063416 A1 Apr. 1, 2004 The Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kuenen. Ans. 3-7.1 The Contentions Regarding representative claim 1, Appellants argue that Kuenen fails to disclose the recited injecting and estimating steps. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants argue that the Frequency Independent I/Q calibration (FIIQC) source 530 or the Frequency Dependent I/Q calibration (FDIQC) source 510 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 10, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 15, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief filed January 20, 2010. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 3 injects two separate signals and performing two separate calibration steps but does not estimate a quadrature error based on the injected test tone signal into the receiver as recited. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants also assert that Kuenen’s error summer 234 does not correct an amplitude error or phase error in the I and Q channels based on the adjusted equalizer coefficients as recited. Reply Br. 4-5. As for claim 2, Appellants question whether the signal generated from Kuenen’s FDIQC 510 in Figure 5 is from a direct digital frequency synthesizer (DDS) as opposed to from the receiver’s quadrature mixing. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants further contend that the FIIQC source 530 is not a DDS. App. Br. 11. Concerning claim 4, Appellants contend that Kuenen’s FIIQC source 530 injects a signal into the receiver’s radio frequency (RF) front end and thus cannot be at an intermediate frequency. App. Br. 11-12. ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kuenen discloses: (1) injecting a test tone signal into a receiver and estimating quadrature error in a receiver’s I channel and Q channel based on the injecting of the test tone signal into the receiver as recited in claim 1? (2) generating the test tone signal by a DDS as recited in claim 2? (3) injecting the test tone signal at any intermediate frequency as recited in claim 4? Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6-10, and 15-18 Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent part, injecting a test tone signal into a receiver and estimating quadrature error in a receiver’s I channel and Q channel based on the injected test tone signal into the receiver. Appellants argue both these limitations collectively. See App. Br. 6-9 (quoting the claim language collectively). However, to the extent that Appellants assert that the injected signals in Kuenen are not “test tone” signals (App. Br. 8-9), we disagree. The Examiner finds that the signal generated from FDIQC source 510 and FIIQC2 source 530 are both test tone signals injected into a receiver. Ans. 7-8. For the FIIQC source 530 and as the Examiner quotes (Ans. 7), Kuenen specifically states that the FIIQC source may be a “signal generated by a conventional tone generator.” ¶ 0050; Fig. 5. Moreover, Figure 5 in Kuenen discloses a receiver 500 and thus this test tone signal is injected into a receiver. ¶ 0044; Fig. 5. Alternatively, while Kuenen does not state that the signal generated from the FDIQC source 510 is a “test tone” signal, Kuenen discloses that the signal is introduced to assist in calibrating the channels of the receiver and is switchable alternatively to a FIIQC source 510. See ¶¶ 0044-46; Fig. 5. The Examiner further finds that this signal is a form of a “test tone signal.” See Ans. 7-8. Appellants have not rebutted this finding (see generally Reply Br.), and we find such a position reasonable. 2 Figure 5 labels source 530 as a “FIDIQC SOURCE.” However, this is typographical error as paragraphs 0044 and 0050 in Kuenen name the source 530 as a FIIQC source. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 5 Equally unavailing is Appellants’ argument that Kuenen fails to teach any error estimation or the recited “estimating quadrature error” step. App. Br. 7-8. Unlike Appellants’ characterization (App. Br. 7), the Examiner states and clarifies that he is not relying on Kuenen’s FIIQC source 530 to disclose this estimating quadrature error step. See Ans. 3, 8. Rather, the Examiner discusses Figure 2 in Kuenen to show this step, which provides more details of a channel calibrator. See ¶¶ 0013, 0016; Figs. 2, 5. Kuenen describes a summer 234 that adds a calibrated quadrature phase data signal Qc with a calibrated in-phase data signal Ic and outputs a feedback error to a coefficient adjuster 235. ¶¶ 0033-34; Fig. 2; see also Ans. 8. Moreover, while not directly in response to the test tone signal being injected into the receiver, this summer produces the feedback error based, at least in part, on the injected test tone signal. Appellants further assert that since the estimating step is not disclosed, Kuenen also fails to teach the recited adjusting step to correct the estimated quadrature error. App. Br. 9. Because we find that Kuenen does disclose the estimating step, we find this argument unpersuasive. For the first time in the Reply Brief and in response to the Examiner’s comments (Ans. 8), Appellants argue that Kuenen does not disclose correcting an amplitude or phase error in the I and Q channels based on the adjusted equalizer coefficients. Reply Br. 4-5. Specifically, Appellants argue that Kuenen’s error summer 234 does not disclose correcting an amplitude or phase error. Reply Br. 5. Yet, the Examiner has not relied on the summer 234 but rather devices 231 and 232 that correct for mismatch (e.g., error) between the I and Q channel phases to meet this limitation. See Ans. 3, 8. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 6 Also, as stated above, Kuenen’s summer 234 adds phase data signals to output a feedback error to a coefficient adjuster 235. ¶ 0034. Kuenen also discloses the coefficients generated by the adjuster 235 are adjusted based on the feedback error in Figure 2. ¶ 0035. Kuenen states and shows quadrature phase channel summer 231 receives coefficient h1 from generator 236 and multiplier 237 and in-phase channel multiplier 232 receives coefficient h2 from generator 238. ¶¶ 0033-37; Fig. 2. Thus, when viewed as a whole, Kuenen discloses corrected at least a phase error in the I and Q channels based on adjusting the equalizer coefficients. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of: independent claim 1 and claims 6-10 and 15-18 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 2 and 3 Based on the record before us, we equally find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. At the outset, the Examiner clarifies that both sources 510 or 530 in Kuenen generate a test tone signal and thus has not taken contradicting positions (App. Br. 10) about what the injected test tone signal in Kuenen is. See Ans. 7-8. We therefore do not find the Examiner’s findings for claims 1 and 2 inconsistent. Regarding FDIQC source 510, Appellants argue that this source in Kuenen is not a DDS. App. Br. 10-11. Without any evidence to support their position (see id.), Appellants argue the signal generated from the FDIQC 510 is not a DDS but is from another source by quadrature mixing. See also Reply Br. 6-7. We disagree. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 7 Identity of terminology between Kuenen and claimed limitation is not required to anticipate claim 1. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). That is, there is no an ipsissimis verbis test. See id. The Examiner explains that Kuenen discloses in Figure 5 the output source 510 is digital and generates a frequency signal which is feed to a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter 520. Ans. 9. Appellants further agree that this signal is digital. Reply Br. 6 (stating “FDIQC source . . . provides a digital signal). Thus, there is no dispute in the record that Kuenen discloses a digital frequency signal. The Examiner additionally finds the source 510 directly synthesizes or generates the frequency signal. See Ans. 9. In response, Appellants contend without any explanation that this band-limited signal source providing a digital signal does not disclose a DDS. Reply Br. 6-7. However, Kuenen’s band-limited source 510 (¶ 0045) combines frequencies into a limited band (e.g., synthesizes a frequency spectrum). Moreover, Appellants have not provided evidence that a DDS is understood to have a special meaning to an ordinarily skilled artisan such that FDIQC source 510 cannot be considered a DDS that generates a test tone signal. Thus, on balance, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 2 and claim 3, not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 11). Claims 4, 5, and 11-14 Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Appellants argue that Kuenen’s FIIQC source 530 generates a test tone signal into the front end of the receiver and thus is not Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 8 an intermediate frequency. App. Br. 11. However, as noted, the Examiner relies upon the signal generated from source 510 – not source 530 – to meet this limitation. See Ans. 10. This source 530’s signal is introduced after the receiver’s front end and thus comprises injecting the test tone signal at any intermediate frequency, giving claim 4 its broadest reasonable construction. Also, we refer to our previous discussion with respect to the Examiner’s purported contradictory statements. See App. Br. 12. Appellants’ arguments for claims 5 and 13 refer to those presented for claim 4, and arguments for claim 14 refer to claim 5. App. Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded for the above-discussed reasons. Claims 11 and 12 depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. Accordingly, we are not persuaded for the reasons set forth concerning claim 13 but also refer to our above discussion of claims 2 and 3 for the disputed claim limitation. See App. Br. 12-13. For the reasons stated previously, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim 4 and claims 5 and 11-14 not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 12-13). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-18 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-004132 Application 11/029,733 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation