Ex Parte Mu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 2017

12243232 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 4015-6294 9899 EXAMINER SHERIF, FATUMA G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/243,232 10/01/2008 24112 7590 01/12/2017 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 Fenghao Mu 01/12/2017 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 FENGHAO MU and FREDRIK TILLMAN Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,2321 Technology Center 2600 Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—13, and 15—22, which constitute all claims pending in the application. Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to a configurable passive mixer for a wireless receiver that minimizes power consumption. Abstract; Spec, 22— 23. Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitations in italics): 1. A passive mixer for a wireless receiver, said passive mixer comprising: a plurality of passive mixer cores connected in parallel and coupled directly to radio frequency input signals; a clock generator comprising at least one local oscillator drive unit with a separate enable/disable signal for each passive mixer core; and a controller configured to selectively enable one or more of the passive mixer cores and disable the remaining passive mixer cores by controlling the enable/disable signal of each local oscillator drive unit and by controlling a transistor bias voltage of each passive mixer core to ensure that each mixer core does not conduct any current when disabled. App. Br. 13 (Claims App’x). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 3—5, 7—10, 13, 15—17, and 19-21 stand rejected under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0041359 Al; published Feb. 18, 2010) (“Liu”), Fathauer et al. (US 4,027,251; issued May 31, 1977) (“Fathauer”), and Zhou (US 6,847,808 B2; issued Jan. 25, 2005). Final Act. 5-10. 2 Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Fathauer, Zhou, and Kondo et al. (US 2008/0297240 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008) (“Kondo”). Final Act. 10-11. Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Fathauer, Zhou, and Hayashi et al. (US 2006/0205370 Al; published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Hayashi”). Final Act. 11— 12. Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Fathauer, Zhou, and Maxim et al. (US 2007/0085719 Al; published Apr. 19, 2007) (“Maxim”). Final Act. 12—13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Claims 1 and 13 Appellants argue the independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 13) as a group. App. Br. 10. We choose claim 1 as representative of the group. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the prior art, and specifically Liu and Zhou, teaches several of the claim limitations. App. Br. 4—9; Reply Br. 2—9. We address each argument in turn. Appellants first contend the Examiner erred in finding Liu teaches an “oscillator drive unit with a separate enable/disable signal []for each 3 Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 passive mixer core.” App. Br. 4 (emphasis added). Appellants argue the portions of Liu cited by the Examiner teach separate buffers, each of which forwards signals to its own corresponding mixer core, but that all such signals for all buffers originate from the same local oscillator (“LO”). Id. Thus, according to Appellants, “Liu does not disclose [or teach] arranging at least one local oscillator drive unit for each passive mixer core.” Id. at 5. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, however, claim 1 does not require a separate LO drive unit for each core, but rather recites “a separate [ ] signal for each . . . core.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). As the Examiner finds, Liu describes and illustrates separate cores each receiving a signal, separately, from separate buffers (via an LO drive unit). Ans. 2—5 (citing Liu Ligs. 4, 6, ^fl[ 25, 46); see also final Act. 5—6. It is immaterial that the separate signals, which pass through different buffers in Liu, could, as Appellants suggest, App. Br. 4—5, have the same value or characteristics (because they originate from the same source LO drive unit, before being separated through different buffers), because the claim only requires the signals to the cores be “separate.” Ans. 3; see also In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 L.3d 1359, 1364 (Led. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”). We, therefore, are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding Lathauer teaches enabling or disabling passive mixer cores “by controlling the enable/disable signal of each local oscillator drive unit,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Lathauer teaches utilizing signals from voltage controlled oscillators to enable or disable mixer cores. Ans. 6—7 (citing Lathauer Lig. la, col. 12,11. 14—20). To the 4 Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 extent Appellants imply the mixer cores in Fathauer are not “passive mixer cores,” the Examiner cited Liu and Zhou as teaching that element, not Fathauer. Ans. 6; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (finding “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references”). Appellants also argue the claim requires the enabling and disabling of passive mixer cores to occur by “controlling a transistor bias voltage of each passive mixer core to ensure that each mixer core does not conduct any current when disabled.” App. Br. 7—8. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Liu teaches this limitation. Id. As the Examiner finds, however, Liu states “[mjixers 450 and 452 may be enabled or disabled by controlling their bias currents Bias_Ql and Bias_Q2 respectively.” Ans. 7 (citing Liu 146). The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, given the elementary relationship between voltage and current (i.e., Ohm’s Law), that controlling transistor bias current would, necessarily, also control transistor bias voltage. Id. Appellants do not explain how the foregoing findings fail to teach the disputed limitation, and we discern no error in the Examiner’s findings. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu, Fathauer, and Zhou. Claims 3—12 and 15—22 The remaining claims are dependent. Appellants argue the Examiner erred regarding each of the claims “for at least the reasons argued for 5 Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 independent claims 1 and 13.” App. Br. 10. We, however, are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above. Appellants also argue that, for dependent claims 11 and 22, “Kondo does not disclose that the calibration circuit calibrates the low-pass filter based on the effective transistor size of a passive mixer.'1'’ Id. at 11 (emphasis added). The Examiner, however, relied on the combination of Kondo with Liu as teaching this limitation, with Liu teaching calibration “based on the effective transistor size.” Ans. 12 (citing Liu Lig. 1,173; Kondo 120). Appellants do not explain the alleged error in this combination, and accordingly, we find none. See In re Keller, 642 L.2d at 426. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 18 because Hayashi fails to teach the claimed relationship between “effective transistor size” and “balance ratio” in the mixer cores. App. Br. 11. Again, however, the Examiner relied upon a combination of references as teaching the disputed limitation, not the single referenced argued by Appellants. See In re Keller, 642 E.2d at 426; Ans. 13—14 (citing combination of Liu, Zhou, and Hayashi). We, accordingly, are not persuaded of error. Lor the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3—12 and 15—22. DECISION We ALLIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—13, and 15—22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.E.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.E.R. § 41.50(f). 6 Appeal 2016-000107 Application 12/243,232 AFFIRMED 7