Ex Parte ZHU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

13611756 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/611,756 09/12/2012 85643 7590 05/02/2016 Guntin & Gust, PLC - BB DOCKET 117 S. Cook St. No. 358 Barrington, IL 60010 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR LIZHONGZHU 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. 32992-US-CNT_l03-24-0l 2872 EXAMINER HU,RUIMENG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docketing@ggip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIZHONG ZHU, GEORGE MANKARUSE, MICHAEL CORRIGAN, and PERRY JARMUSZEWSKI Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 26-48. Claims 1-25 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is a wireless communications device containing radio frequency (RF) circuitry. Abstract. The device performs In-phase (I) and quadrature (Q) modulation. Id. Each I and Q circuit contains its own power-amplification circuit to separately amplify the modulated signal. Id. The device then combines the I and Q signals. Id. Notably, the I and Q circuits are isolated from the combined I and Q signal. Id. This isolation enhances antenna matching and transmitted radiated power, and reduces harmonic emission. Id. Claim 26, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative: 26. A mobile wireless communications device compnsmg: an In-phase (I) circuit comprising a first modulator mixer, a first power amplifier coupled to the first modulator mixer, and a first bias circuit coupled to the first power amplifier; a Quadrature ( Q) circuit compnsmg a second modulator mixer, a second power amplifier coupled to the second modulator mixer, and a second bias circuit coupled to the second amplifier; a hybrid power combiner coupled to the first and second power amplifiers; and a filter coupled to the hybrid power combiner. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 26-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42--44, 46, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bachhuber 2 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 (US 7,773,959 Bl; issued Aug. 10, 2010) and Edwards (US 6,415,002 Bl; issued July 2, 2002). Final Act. 3-7. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 32 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bachhuber, Edwards, and Sorrells (US 2007/0202819 Al; published Aug. 30, 2007). Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner rejected claims 35, 41, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bachhuber, Edwards, and Appellants' admission. Final Act. 8-9. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BACHHUBER AND EDWARDS Contentions The Examiner finds that Bachhuber discloses every recited element of claim 26 except for the recited filter, but cites Edwards as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Edwards; low pass filter 600 corresponds to the recited filter. Id. at 4 (citing Edwards, Fig. 6). According to the Examiner, "include[ing]" Edwards's low-pass filter in Bachhuber' s system would have been obvious because doing so would have removed further unwanted harmonics. Ans. 4; Final Act. 4. 2 In the 1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed July 19, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 27, 2013 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed February 13, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed April 11, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 2 In the "Response to Arguments" section of the Final Rejection, the Examiner notes that Bachhuber's impedance-transformation circuity 18 also removes targeted harmonics and reads on a filter. Final Act. 2. While we question why the Examiner did not rely on this teaching as corresponding to the final limitation of claim 26, "a filter coupled to the hybrid power 3 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 Answer's "Response to Arguments" section, the Examiner proposes replacing, not augmenting or supplementing, Bachhuber' s impedance- transformation circuitry with Edwards' filter. Ans. 9--10. Appellants argue that applying Edwards' low-pass filter to Bachhuber would substantially change Bachhuber's intended purpose of transforming impedance. App. Br. 8. In the Reply Brief, Appellants respond to the Examiner's proposal to replace, rather than supplement, the impedance circuitry with a low-pass filter. Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, replacing Bachhuber's impedance-transformation circuitry with Edwards' filter would not have been obvious because doing so would defeat the device's purpose. Id. Issues (1) UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26 by finding that Bachhuber and Edwards collectively would have taught or suggested a mobile wireless communications device with a filter coupled to the recited hybrid power combiner? (2) Is the Examiner's combining the teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? combiner," we take no position on this finding or any potential anticipation rejection, as such a rejection is not before us. Nor is this finding the basis for the obviousness rejection that is before us. Instead, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether Bachhuber alone anticipates at least claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102. 4 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 Analysis We begin by noting that the Examiner's initially-articulated position in the rejection appears to differ somewhat from the position subsequently articulated in the Examiner's Response to Arguments in the Answer. In the rejection, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include Edwards' low pass filter to remove further unwanted harmonics. Ans. 4. By stating "include" in this context, we understand the Examiner to contemplate, in at least one scenario, adding a low pass filter to Bachhuber. But in the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Answer, the Examiner suggests that an option would be to replace Bachhuber's impedance-matching circuit with a filter. See Ans. 9--10. To the extent that the Examiner articulates a new position in the Answer's "Response to Arguments" section (Ans. 9--10) that differs from that articulated in the rejection (id. at 4; Final Act. 4), we nevertheless confine our discussion to the Examiner's position as articulated in the rejection, for the appeal was taken from that position. Therefore, we deem any error associated with the Examiner's position in the Answer's "Response to Arguments" section (Ans. 9--10) harmless. Turning to the merits, we see no error in the Examiner's position as articulated in the rejection which, as noted previously, reasonably contemplates adding a low-pass filter to Bachhuber' s system in at least one scenario. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4 (concluding that it would have been obvious to "include the low pass filter to remove further unwanted harmonics") (emphasis added). 5 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 Bachhuber's Figure 5 system is shown below. Â·--------------------------------------------------------------- ' I I Â·-------------------------------' I I I -------------------------------J , ______________________________________________________________ ] Bachhuber's Figure 5 showing an amplifier 12, power combiner 16, and impedance-transformation circuitry 18. Bachhuber's power combiner 16 is coupled to impedance- transformation circuity 18. See Bachhuber, Fig. 5. According to Bachhuber, the impedance-transformation circuitry 18 transforms the impedance to optimize power transfer from the amplifier. Bachhuber, col. 4, 11. 30-33. Under the Examiner's proposed combination (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4), we see nothing on this record that would suggest circuitry 18 would perform a different function when used in combination with Edwards's low-pass filter. For example, Edwards uses a low-pass filter 600 to remove an amplifier's harmonics (Edwards, col. 7, 11. 41-44; Fig. 6}-just as the filter operates in the Examiner's proposed combination (Ans. 4). We also see 6 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 nothing to suggest that the Examiner proposes changing the operation of Bachhuber's circuitry 18. See id. Rather, one plausible scenario under the Examiner's proposed modification is merely to add Edwards's filter to Bachhuber's system "to remove further unwanted harmonics." See id. (emphasis added). That is, by providing the filter as an adjunct to Bachhuber's impedance-transformation circuitry, the Examiner's combination (id.) uses known elements with no respective change in their functions to yield a predictable result-an obvious improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Likewise, Appellants have not shown that adding a low-pass filter would have interfered with the operation of Bachhuber's impedance- transformation circuity 18 or otherwise rendered it unsuitable for its intended purpose. See App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Here, the Examiner's proposed system would perform two separate functions, namely transform impedance and filter harmonics. See Ans. 4; Final Act. 4. Therefore, the combination uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result-an impedance- transformed signal with filtered harmonics. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. On this record, then, the Examiner's obviousness conclusion (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4) is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. Appellants' argument regarding replacing Bachhuber' s impedance- transformation circuitry 18 with a filter (Reply Br. 3) does not squarely address the Examiner's position articulated in the rejection (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4) that, in at least one scenario, includes providing the filter as an adjunct to---rather than a replacementfor-Bachhuber's impedance- 7 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 transformation circuitry. And because the appealed rejection reasonably includes adding a filter (Ans. 4; Final Act. 4), as noted previously, we are unpersuaded that the proposed modification would have changed Bachhuber's intended impedance-transformation purpose as argued (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26, and claims 27-31, 33, 34, 36-40, 42--44, 46, and 47, not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 32, 35, 41, 45, and 48. Ans. 7-9. Appellants contend that Sorrells does not cure the purported deficiencies of Bachhuber and Edwards, but they do not argue this rejection separately with particularity. App. Br. 8. Likewise, Appellants do not argue the rejection of claims 3 5, 41, and 48 based on admitted prior art. See id. at 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Nevertheless, to the extent that Appellants' earlier arguments apply to these claims, we are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed previously. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 26-48 under Â§ 103. 8 Appeal2014-005689 Application 13/611,756 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 26-48 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9