Ex Parte Roufoogaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2014

11753626 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAZIEH ROUFOOGARAN, QIANG LI, and ARYA BEHZAD ____________ Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–30. (App. Br. 3.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 13, 2011; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 24, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 24, 2011. Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 2 Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns signal processing systems, methods, and machine-readable storage media for mixing local oscillator signals with a selected frequency range, buffering the mixed signals, and generating a single phase output signal in a single backend stage. (Spec. ¶¶ 4, 12, 18, 22–27; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for processing signals, the method comprising: in a system that handles one or more wireless communication protocols: selecting an input frequency range of operation based on a particular wireless band of operation; mixing a plurality of generated local oscillator signals within a selected frequency range based on said particular wireless band of operation; and generating an output signal for said particular wireless band of operation based on buffering said mixed plurality of said generated local oscillator signals in a single backend stage, wherein said generated output signal comprises a single phase signal. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 10–13, 20–23, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,516,184 B1, issued Feb. 4, 2003 (“Damgaard”). Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 3 2. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 14–16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Damgaard and U.S. Patent No. 7,450,925 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2008 (filed Jan. 24, 2006) (“Chae”). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Damgaard and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2007/0026831 A1, published Feb. 1, 2007 (filed Oct. 2, 2006, claiming benefit of 10/902,465, filed on July 30, 2004) (“Jaffe”). 4. The Examiner rejects claims 7–9, 18, 19, and 27–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Damgaard and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0224747 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003 (“Anand”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Damgaard discloses “mixing a plurality of generated local oscillator signals within a selected frequency range based on said particular wireless band of operation” and “generating an output signal for said particular wireless band of operation based on buffering said mixed plurality of . . . signals in a single backend stage, wherein said generated output signal comprises a single phase signal” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 11 and 21? Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Damgaard. (Ans. 4–5, 9–10.) Appellants contend that the combination does not disclose the disputed features of claim 1. (App. Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 4–6.) Specifically, Appellants contend that “Damgaard neither discloses nor suggests ‘buffering said mixed plurality of said generated local oscillator signals in a single backend stage,’ as claimed by the Appellant in independent claim 1,” but instead describes “demodulating (as opposed to buffering) the receive signal with two 90° phase displaced demodulating signals.” (App. Br. 8.) We agree with Appellants that the portions of Damgaard identified by the Examiner do not disclose the disputed features of independent claim 1. (App. Br. 7–10.) While we agree with the disclosures of the reference identified by the Examiner (Ans. 4–5, 9–10) — that Damgaard describes mixing local oscillator signals based on a selected frequency band and generating an output signal for the particular selected frequency band — we cannot agree that Damgaard describes buffering the mixed oscillator signals. The Examiner does not address the specific recitations/requirements of claim 1. Claim 1 requires “generating an output signal . . . based on buffering said mixed plurality of . . . signals — i.e., buffering the generated mixed signals, and then processing these buffered signals in some manner to produce an output signal. The Examiner does not explain how Damgaard describes such buffering. Instead, the Examiner merely points to Damgaard’s Quadrature Down Converter (Figure 5, element 230) and Baseband Filter and Gain (Figure 5, element 240) and asserts that these elements somehow buffer the signals from Damgaard’s Image Reject Mixer Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 5 (Figure 5, element 210). (Ans. 5, 9.) The general disclosures of Damgaard (using mixed oscillator signals to demodulate (down convert) a received signal) do not sufficiently disclose the buffering requirement recited in claim 1. The present rejection is based on anticipation, not obviousness, and the Examiner does not explain how Damgaard’s Quadrature Down Converter “buffers” the mixed oscillator signals — i.e., how buffering of the mixed oscillator signals is inherent in the down conversion processing. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Damgaard discloses the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants’ independent claims 11 and 21 include limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2–10, 12– 20, and 22–30 depend on and stand with claims 1, 11, and 21 respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 10–13, 20–23, 25, and 30, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 6–9, 14–19, 24, and 26-29. CONCLUSIONS Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1– 3, 5, 10–13, 20–23, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 6–9, 14–19, 24, and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-30. REVERSED Appeal 2012-001354 Application 11/753,626 6 msc