Ex Parte Vavelidis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 27, 2012

11385423 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2012)

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.
11/385,423 03/21/2006 Konstantinos D. Vavelidis 3875.1240002 2707
26111 7590 11/27/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
TORRES, JUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2012 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 KONSTANTINOS D. VAVELIDIS, ARISTEIDIS I. KYRANAS
_____________

Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and MICHAEL J.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 20.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for providing for a mobile
cellular television tuner utilizing current steering variable gain at radio
frequency. The method is implemented on a tuner in which the circuits are
integrated on one chip. See pages 6, 8 and 9 of Appellants’ Specification.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for processing wireless information, the method
comprising:
generating, based on a gain signal, a control signal in a low noise
amplifier (LNA) integrated within a single-chip multi-band radio
frequency (RF) receiver that handles at least L-band frequencies and a
UHF band; and
adjusting a current flow through circuitry in an input stage within
said integrated LNA based on said generated control signal to control a
gain for said integrated LNA.

REFERENCES
Petersen US 5,463,603 Oct. 31, 1995
Kamata US 6,940,365 B2 Sep. 6, 2005

Antoine, "A Direct-Conversion Receiver for DVB-H", ISSCC 2005
IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference, 2005, Digest of
Technical Papers, 10-10 Feb. 2005 Page(s):426 - 607 Vol. 1

Dawkins, "A Single-Chip Tuner for DVB-T", IEEE Journal of Solid-
State Circuits, Volume 38, Issue 8, Aug. 2003 Page(s):1307 - 1317.

Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
3

Love, "Single-chip tuner enables broadcast TV in both European and
North American handsets", eeProductCenter (06/06/2005 6:32 AM
ET

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7 through 14, and 17
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Antoine in
view of Love. Answer 4-7. 1
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Antoine in view of Love and Petersen. Answer
7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Antoine in view of Love and Kamata. Answer 7-
8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 7 through 14, and 17
through under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dawkins in
view of Love. Answer 8-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dawkins in view of Love and Petersen. Answer
10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dawkins in view of Love and Kamata. Answer
11.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
January 19, 2010.
Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
4

The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 11 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over the claims of
Application No. 11/385,081. Answer 11-12.

ISSUES
Rejection based upon of obviousness-type double patenting
The Examiner states on page 13 of the Answer that the Office has not
received a terminal disclaimer regarding the copending application and for
this reason the double patenting is maintained. Appellants disagree and state
on page 15 of the Reply Brief, that a terminal disclaimer was submitted on
September 8, 2009. We have reviewed the Office records and note that a
terminal disclaimer was submitted on September 8, 2009 and note that there
is an indication that it was accepted on September 10, 2009. Thus, there is
no issue for us to decide and we will not sustain the Examiner’s double
patenting rejection as the Examiner maintained it based upon an oversight in
not recognizing that an acceptable terminal disclaimer was filed.

Rejections of claim 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue on page 7 through 15 of the Brief2 and pages 4
through 6 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1 and 11 are in error. These arguments present us with the issue: did
the Examiner error in finding the combination of either Antoine or Dawkins
in view of Love teaches or suggests generating a gain control signal and

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated December 7,
2009, and Reply Brief dated March 19, 2010.
Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
5

adjusting the current flow through circuitry of an input stage within said
integrated low noise amplifier (LNA) as recited in claims 1 and 11?3

Rejections of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants’ arguments on pages 15 and 18 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 6 through 10 of the Reply Brief directed to claims 2 and 12 present us
with the issue: did the Examiner error in finding the combination of either
Antoine or Dawkins in view of Love teaches or suggests generating a
control signal within the integrated LNA as recited in claims 2 and 12?
Rejections of claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants’ arguments on pages 18 through 20 of the Appeal Brief
and pages 11 through 13 of the Reply Brief directed to claims 7 and 17
present us with the issue: did the Examiner error in finding the combination
of either Antoine or Dawkins in view of Love teaches or suggests adjusting
at least one bias voltage within the integrated LNA as recited in claims 7 and
17?
Rejections of claims 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants’ arguments on pages 20 through 21 of the Appeal Brief
and pages 13 through 15 of the Reply Brief directed to claims 8 and 18
present us with the issue: did the Examiner error in finding the combination

3 We note that Appellants present arguments on pages 2 and 3 of the Reply
Brief directed to Magoon, Molnar and Womac. These arguments were
presented for the first time in the Reply Brief and have not been considered
as they are deemed waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-
74 (BPAI 2010) (“informative”3) (absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address argument in Reply Brief that could have
been presented in the principal Brief).

Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
6

of either Antoine or Dawkins in view of Love teaches or suggests adjusting
at least one bias voltage within the integrated LNA as recited in claims 8 and
18?
ANALYSIS

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 through 20. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response to each of Appellants’ arguments, identifying
where the argued limitations are taught in the teachings of Antoine or
Dawkins and Love. Answer 12-35. We have reviewed these findings by the
Examiner and consider them to be supported by ample evidence.

Claims 1 and 11
Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims assert the same error in
the Examiner’s findings of Antoine and Dawkins, specifically that they do
not teach the current is controlled in the input stage of the integrated LNA
based upon a generated gain control signal but rather in an output stage of
the LNA. Answer 10 and 12. The Appellants clarify this argument on page
4 of the Reply Brief, by stating “the claims require adjusting current flow
through circuitry ‘in an input stage within said integrated LNA,’ not in an
‘input stage of the [integrated] circuit’ as the Examiner alleges.” Reply
Brief 4 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument as it is
premised upon narrowly construing an “input stage of an integrated LNA.”
The specification does not provide a definition of an input stage of an
Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
7

integrated LNA to define over the prior art (further, neither the claim nor the
specification defines the bounds of the LNA, and the integrated LNA with
respect to other circuits on the chip). Accordingly, Appellants arguments
that the current control in the LNA’s of Antoine and Dawkins is not in an
input stage as claimed are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 11.

Claims 3, 4, 9 10, 13, 14, 19, and 20
Appellants do not present separate arguments directed to claims 3, 4,
9 10, 13, 14, 19, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of these claims for the same reason as claims 1 and 11.

Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16
Appellants argue that the rejections of these claims are in error for the
reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 11. Brief 21-23.
Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 15
and 16.

Claim 2 and 12
Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims assert the same error in
the Examiner’s finding that both Antoine and Dawkins teach that the control
signal is generated within the integrated LNA. Rather, Appellants assert the
references teach the control signal is generated external to the LNA block.
Brief 17 and 18. As further clarification of Appellants’ arguments the
Appellants state “[t]he Examiner appears to be confusing the LNA with the
chip into which the LNA is integrated.” Reply Brief 7. We are not
persuaded by this argument as it is premised upon narrowly construing what
Appeal 2010-06750
Application 11/385,423
8

is meant by “integrated LNA.” As discussed with respect to claim 1, neither
the claim nor the specification define the bounds of the LNA, and the
integrated LNA with respect to other circuits on the chip, as such we do not
find the Examiner’s interpretation to be unreasonable. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 12.

Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18
Appellants’ arguments directed to these claims assert the same error in
the Examiner’s findings of Antoine and Dawkins and center around the
bounds of the integrated LNA and the single chip multi-band radio
frequency receiver. As discussed above, neither the claim nor the
specification define the bounds of these elements with respect to other
circuits on the chip or the chip itself and, as such, we do not find the
Examiner’s interpretation to be unreasonable. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 17 and 18.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 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

tj