Intersil Americas LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2020

14718844 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2020)

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.
14/718,844 05/21/2015 Itaru Hiromi 113585-1503
(SE-3069-AN)
9747
141748 7590 03/10/2020
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
LEE, SHUN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2884
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ITARU HIROMI
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844
Technology Center 2800

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 5–10, all of the pending
claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were
heard on February 26, 2020. A transcript of that hearing will be added to the
record in due time.
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Intersil Americas LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claim 4 is cancelled. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “a method for use by an
optical proximity detector.” Spec. ¶ 62.3 According to Appellant, “a digital
distance value, [is] indicative of a distance between the optical proximity
detector and [an] object” to be detected. Id. ¶ 100. Also, “a digital precision
value is produced which is indicative of a precision of the digital distance
value.” Id. ¶ 101. In the claimed invention, the digital precision value is
determined in dependence on “an integration time of digital filters that are
used to produce the digital distance value.” Appeal Br. 10.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with limitations at issue
emphasized and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use by an optical proximity detector
that includes a light source and a light detector, the method
comprising:
selectively driving the light source with a drive signal
having a carrier frequency to thereby cause the light source to
selectively emit light having the carrier frequency;
producing an analog light detection signal indicative of a
magnitude and a phase of a portion of the light emitted by the
light source that reflects off an object and is incident on the
light detector;
amplifying the analog light detection signal using
amplification circuitry to thereby produce an amplitude
adjusted analog light detection signal;

3 Throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed
May 21, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed
November 30, 2017; (3) the Appeal Brief filed May 7, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
and (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 14, 2018; and (5) the
Reply Brief filed August 14, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

3
producing, in dependence on the amplitude adjusted
analog light detection signal, digital in-phase and quadrature-
phase signals;
producing, in dependence on the digital in-phase and
quadrature-phase signals, a digital distance value indicative of a
distance between the optical proximity detector and the object;
producing a digital DC current value, using a DC
photocurrent analog-to-digital converter (DCPC ADC) coupled
to the light detector, the digital DC current value indicative of a
DC current produced by the light detector when the light source
is not emitting light;
producing, in dependence on the digital DC current value
indicative of the DC current produced by the light detector
when the light source is not emitting light, a digital precision
value indicative of a precision of the digital distance value,
wherein the producing the digital precision value includes
determining the digital precision value also in dependence on:
an integration time of digital filters that are used
to produce the digital distance value in dependence on
the digital in-phase and quadrature-phase signals; and
a magnitude of the analog light detection signal
produced using the light detector;
outputting the digital distance value or saving the digital
distance value in one or more addressable registers; and
outputting the digital precision value or saving the digital
precision value in one or more addressable registers.
Appeal Br. 10–11 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

4
REFERENCES
The references4 relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Yamashita US 6,195,197 B1 Feb. 27, 2001
Seto US 6,339,740 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Banks US 2010/0128109 A1 May 27, 2010
Ritter US 2011/0181861 A1 July 28, 2011
Burns System design of a
pulsed laser
rangefinder
Mar. 1991
Hebert 3-D Measurements
From Imaging Laser
Radars:
How Good Are They?
Nov. 1991
Intersil HSP50110 Mar. 2001

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yamashita, Seto, Ritter, HSP50110, and Burns. Final
Act. 2–6.
The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yamashita, Seto, Ritter, HSP50110, Burns, and Banks.
Id. at 9–10.
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yamashita, Seto, Ritter, HSP50110, Burns, and Hebert. Id. at 9–10.

4 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor or author only.
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

5
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, “producing a digital precision
value . . . wherein the producing the digital precision value includes
determining the digital precision value also in dependence on: an integration
time of digital filters that are used to produce the digital distance value in
dependence on the digital in-phase and quadrature-phase signals.” The
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of HSP50110 and Burns to teach
the limitation at issue. Final Act. 5–6 (citing HSP50110, 4, 8, 10 and Burns
324–25).
Appellant argues “[n]owhere does Burns mention anything about
integration times of digital filters, much less filters used to produce digital
distance values as explicitly set forth in the claims. . . . [A]t best, Burns
describes a method for determining range error (the alleged digital precision
value) based on a noise equivalent bandwidth BWN.” Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant continues “[n]owhere does HSP50110 mention anything about
how noise bandwidth can be set by integration times of digital filters, much
less filters used to produce digital distance values as explicitly set forth in
the claims.” Id. “HSP50110 teaches that BWN is not dependent on an
Integrate and Dump filter (much less integration times thereof), but is
instead dependent on a type of third order CIC filter used to produce a
desired decimation factor” and, therefore, “it is clearly erroneous to take the
position that HSP50110 teaches anything about how ‘noise bandwidth [is]
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

6
set by integration time’ as set forth in the claims.” Id. at 8 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Claim 1 requires that the
digital precision value is determined “in dependence on: an integration time
of digital filters that are used to produce the digital distance value.” Id. at
10. As discussed above, the Examiner finds, and Appellant agrees (Appeal
Br. 7), that “‘Burns describes a method for determining range error (the
alleged digital precision value) based on a noise equivalent bandwidth BWN.
But Burns does not teach or suggest anything about how this term BWN is
obtained or computed.’” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds “one of ordinary skill
would know that the BWN will be provided in data sheets. For example,
Intersil Corporation’s HSP50110 data sheet is evidence that noise equivalent
bandwidth is a function of the integration time for a digital filter of an I/Q
demodulator IC.” Id.
In response to Appellant’s argument that HSP50110 does not teach
“how noise bandwidth can be set by integration times of digital filters, much
less filters used to produce digital distance values as explicitly set forth in
the claims” (Appeal Br. 7), the Examiner notes that even though “the
references fail to show certain features of appellant’s invention, . . . the
features upon which appellant relies (i.e., a specific digital filter) are not
recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Ans. 5).
We disagree with the Examiner because claim 1 does require
determining the digital precision value in dependence on an integration time
of specific digital filters, i.e., “digital filters that are used to produce the
digital distance value in dependence on the digital in-phase and quadrature-
phase signals.” Accordingly, the features upon which Appellant’s argument
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

7
relies are recited in claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner does not show how
HSP50110 teaches determining the digital precision value in dependence on
an integration time of digital filters, as recited in claim 1, because the
Examiner does not sufficiently explain how noise equivalent bandwidth is a
function of the integration time for the digital filters discussed in HSP50110.
The rejection relies, in part, on HSP50110’s Table 3, which shows
noise equivalent bandwidth for different filters. HSP50110’s Table 3 is
reproduced below:

Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

8
HSP50110 describes Table 3, in part, as including “[a] summary of
equivalent IF BN’s for different filter configurations and decimation rates.”
HSP50110, p. 10.
The Examiner relies on Table 3’s illustration of various decimation
rates (“DEC”) to teach an integration time of the claimed digital filter.
Specifically, the Examiner finds,
In this case, the scope of the “digital filters” includes any digital
filter that can be used to produce the digital distance value in
dependence on the digital in-phase and quadrature-phase
signals. As discussed above, one of ordinary skill would
program the I/Q demodulator IC (e.g., with an integration time
of 10 DEC for 0.5525 noise equivalent bandwidth using a 3rd
order CIC) so as to achieve a desired bandwidth for detection of
in-phase (I) and quadrature-phase (Q) data in order to extract
range (i.e., distance) information by a demodulate calculation.
Therefore the scope of the “digital filters” includes 3rd order
CIC digital filter within a commercially available I/Q
demodulator IC that can be used to produce the digital distance
value in dependence on the digital in-phase and quadrature-
phase signals.
Ans. 5–6.
The Examiner, however, has not sufficiently shown how HSP50110’s
decimation rate, i.e., the cited decimation rate of 10 in row 2 of Table 3—
teach an integration time, as claimed. As argued by Appellant, the
Examiner’s finding that the ‘“decimation rate is equivalent to the number of
samples in the integration period’” is insufficient to establish that HSP50110
teaches or suggests “that the number of samples in an integration period is
the same as an integration time of digital filters as is expressly set forth by
the claims.” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

9
Because the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that HSP50110
teaches “an integration time of digital filters that are used to produce the
digital distance value in dependence on the digital in-phase and quadrature-
phase signals,” we find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
has not shown the cited combination teaches “determining the digital
precision value also in dependence on: an integration time of digital filters,”
as recited in claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellant for claim 1, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, based on the record before us,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent
claim 1, and, for the same reasons, of dependent claims 2, 3, and 5, 8 and 9.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of claims 6, 7,
and 10, the Examiner does not rely on either of the additionally cited
references, Banks and Hebert, to cure the deficiency noted in relation to
claim 1. Final Act. 9–11. Accordingly, we do not sustain these obviousness
rejections for the reasons set forth above in relation to claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3 and 5–10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-008424
Application 14/718,844

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 8,
9
103 Yamashita, Seto, Ritter,
HSP50110, Burns
1–3, 5, 8,
9
6, 7 103 Yamashita, Seto, Ritter,
HSP50110, Burns, Banks
6, 7
10 103 Yamashita, Seto, Ritter,
HSP50110, Burns,
Hebert
10
Overall
Outcome
1–3,
5–10

REVERSED