Ex Parte Jensen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2013

10856133 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HENRIK T. JENSEN
____________

Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. §134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
Appellant’s disclosure relates to wireless communications,
particularly to oscillation circuits that may be used to facilitate such wireless
communications (Spec., p. 1, ll. 8–9).
Independent claim 15 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
15. An integrated radio circuit comprises:
a transmitter section operably coupled to convert outbound
baseband signals into outbound radio frequency (RF) signals
based on a transmit local oscillation;
a receiver section operable coupled to convert inbound RF
signals into inbound baseband signals based on a receive local
oscillation; and
a local oscillation generation module operable coupled to
produce the transmit local oscillation and the receive local
oscillation, wherein the local oscillation generation module
includes:
a phase and frequency detection module operably
coupled to produce a difference signal from at least one of
phase differences and frequency differences between a
reference oscillation and a feedback oscillation;
Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133

3
a charge pump operably coupled to convert the difference
signal into a current signal;
a loop filter operably coupled to convert the current
signal into a control voltage;
a voltage controlled oscillation module operably coupled
to convert the control voltage into an output oscillation,
wherein the transmit and receive local oscillations are derived
from the output oscillation;
a feedback module operably couple to produce the
feedback oscillation from the output oscillation, wherein the
feedback module includes a multi-modulus divider module and
a delta sigma control module, wherein the delta sigma control
module includes:
an input integration stage operably coupled to
integrate a digital input signal to produce an integrated digital
signal;
a resonating stage operably coupled to resonate the
integrated digital signal to produce a resonating digital signal;
and
a quantizer stage operably coupled to produce a
quantized signal from the resonating digital signal.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Eriksson '815 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,011,815) in view of
Eriksson '512 (U.S. Pat. No. 5,986,512).

Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133

4
Issue
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) are in error. These arguments present us with the issue whether the
Examiner erred in finding that Eriksson '512 discloses the delta sigma
control module recited in the illustrative claim.
1

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in his Appeal Brief, and
have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1)
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Eriksson '512 describes a “ΣΔ modulator-controlled PLL circuit”
(Eriksson '512, col. 1, l. 7), with the Examiner’s rejection identifying Fig. 3
as disclosing the “delta sigma control module” recited in claim 15 (Ans. 4).
The Examiner has identified specific combinations of elements in Fig. 3 that
correspond to the recited “integration stage” and “resonating stage” (Ans. 6–

1
Independent claim 1 recites a “delta sigma modulator” with elements in
exact correspondence with the “delta sigma control module” recited in claim
15. Independent claims 8 and 22 include a recitation to a “delta sigma
control module” in exact correspondence with the element recited in claim
15. Separate patentability is not argued for these independent claims, nor is
separate patentability argued for any of dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16– 21,
and 23–28. We therefore address the “delta sigma control modulator”
recited in claim 15; except for our ultimate decision, the other claims are not
discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133

5
7) and has provided compelling reasons for concluding that these
combinations function in a manner consistent with the claim recitations.
Appellant argues that the “modulators of Eriksson ['512] do not
include an integration stage or a resonating stage as is claimed in claims 1, 8,
15, and 22” (Br. 5), noting that Eriksson '512 identifies elements 66 and 68
in Fig. 3 as “filters” (Br. 5, citing Eriksson '512, Col. 7, ll. 42–58). But
Appellant fails to provide any convincing identification of specific claim
language that either precludes the Examiner’s construction of the claim or
the Examiner’s finding that the identified combinations function in a manner
consistent with that construction. Indeed, the claim recitations are
sufficiently broad that we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that Appellant is unduly focused on the nomenclature used by
Eriksson '512 (Ans. 9).
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has improperly relied on
Official Notice (Br. 6). Since we find the Examiner has adequately
identified specific disclosures within the four corners of the cited art to
support the rejections, we are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
position on this basis.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1–28 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Eriksson '815 in view of Eriksson '512.

Appeal 2010-011503
Application 10/856,133

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–28 is affirmed.
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

msc