Ex Parte Yahav et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 14, 2016

12551574 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/551,574 0910112009 49579 7590 04/14/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Nir Yahav 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2875.8260000 2890 EXAMINER SHERIF, FA TUMA G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 04/14/2016 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 NIR Y AHA V and OFER RAHMANONY Appeal2014-003310 Application 12/551,574 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-29. An oral hearing was conducted March 23, 2016. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. We have considered Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established Kintis (US 7,042,960 B2; May 09, 2006) discloses "a first adder configured to add the first opposite-phase component and the first in- 1 A transcript of the oral hearing will be forthcoming. Appeal2014-003310 Application 12/551,574 phase component" and "a second adder configured to add the second opposite-phase component and the second in-phase component" ("first and second adder" limitations), as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 17, 19, and 22. The Examiner finds Kintis describes mixer 22 and mixer 24 are adding local oscillator and RF signals and that the mixers are similar enough to read upon the claimed adders. Ans. 20 (citing Kintis Fig. 1, 3:5-18, 3:27- 29, 5:10-47). Appellants argue the mixers 22, 24 described by Kintis are different from the claimed adders because the mixers do not add the components. App. Br. 14--15. Instead, as generally known in the art, the mixers multiply input sinusoidal signals, which results in two sinusoidal signals that have frequencies equal to fi+f2 and fi-6. Id. Appellants further argue one of ordinary skill in the art would understand mixing two sinusoidal signals is a non-linear operation that produces a plurality of different frequency components, while adding signals is a linear operation that does not create new frequency components in the output signal. Id. at 15. Additionally, Appellants argue that the mixer output produces an output signal having a frequency that is the sum of the frequencies of the input signals, but is not a sum of the signals themselves, which is a well-known result of multiplying two input sinusoidal signals. Reply Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellants. Kintis describe a local oscillator signal is split into two signals and applied to input ports 32 and 36 of mixers 22 and 24 respectively and that a RF input signal is split and applied to the other input ports 34 and 38 of mixers 22 and 24. Kintis 3:2-14, Fig. 1. Kintis further describe the mixer output signal foutput includes the desired output frequency and spurs (spurious output signals) and the mixer products are in 2 Appeal2014-003310 Application 12/551,574 the form fi, f2, fi+fa, fi-f2, 2f1, 2f2. Kintis 4: 12-14, 5:34--36; see also Kintis 1:30-35. We agree with Appellants that the cited sections of Kintis describe that mixers 22, 24 are performing a non-linear operation that outputs the sum of the frequencies of the signals and is not a sum of the signals themselves. In contrast, the claimed adders are adding opposite-phase and in-phase components, which are described in Appellants' Specification as waveforms having offsets of 180Â° (opposite-phase) and 0Â° (in-phase) with substantially the same amplitudes. Spec. 6:22-31. Thus, the components being added are not merely the frequencies of the signals. For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us that the Examiner has not established Kintis discloses the "first and second adder" limitations. The Examiner does not make any findings that the additional reference of record in the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection (Wu; US 2002/0163375 Al; Nov. 07, 2002) teaches or suggests the "first and second adder'' limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 17, 19, and 22; and (2) the remaining claims, which depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-29. REVERSED 3