Juergen Nowottnick et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

14472112 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2019)

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.
14/472,112 08/28/2014 Juergen Nowottnick 81537088US03 1459
65913 7590 12/23/2019
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUERGEN NOWOTTNICK and JUERGEN LEMKE
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, 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 1–21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NXP, B.V.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the invention as relating to “a device and to a
method for data-reception using amplitude modulation, in particular to a
base station adapted for RF-communication with a transponder.” Spec. 1:7–
9.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. Device for data-reception using amplitude modulation,
comprising:
a coil having a coil terminal and being adapted to receive
an amplitude modulated electromagnetic wave, whereupon an
amplitude modulated signal is induced in the coil and provided
at the coil terminal, the amplitude modulated signal comprising
a positive voltage portion and a negative voltage portion, with
at least the positive voltage portion sometimes being induced
without amplitude-based signal encoding and at other times
being induced with amplitude-based signal encoding; and
an adjustment circuit including a divider circuit
electrically coupled via an input terminal to the coil terminal,
wherein the adjustment circuit is adapted:
to adjust the amplitude modulated signal by
reducing a voltage amplitude of the amplitude modulated
signal by a constant amount when the positive voltage
portion is being induced without amplitude-based signal
encoding but not when the positive voltage portion is
being induced with amplitude-based signal encoding,
while preserving a relative entropy of amplitude
modulation therein, and
to provide the adjusted amplitude modulated signal
at an output terminal of the adjustment circuit.

Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Takiguchi US 2006/0049918 A1 Mar. 9, 2006
Meltzer US 2008/0305760 A1 Dec. 11, 2008
Tsukamoto US 2012/0134444 A1 May 31, 2012

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 5–7.
2. Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Takiguchi and Tsukamoto. Final Act. 8–10.
3. Claims 2–14 and 16–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Takiguchi, Tsukamoto, and Meltzer. Final Act. 10–24.
OPINION
Written Description Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing
to comply with the written description requirement. See Final Act. 6. In the
rejection of these claims, the Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification
merely discloses alternate embodiments of an adjustment circuit (as
illustrated in Figures 3 and 4) that adjusts an amplitude modulated signal by
reducing a voltage amplitude of the amplitude modulated signal by a
constant amount. See id.; see also Ans. 3–4. The Examiner further finds
that nothing in Appellant’s Specification discloses that the adjustment is
performed by reducing the voltage amplitude of the amplitude modulated
signal, “when the positive voltage portion is being induced without
amplitude-based signal encoding but not when the positive voltage portion is
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
4
being induced with amplitude-based signal encoding,” as recited in claim 1.
See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner further indicates that claims
15 and 16 contain similar limitations and are therefore rejected on the same
grounds as claim 1. See Final Act. 6. As also indicated by the Examiner,
claims 2–14 and 17–21 depend at least in part on one of claims 1, 15, or 16
and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claims 1, 15, and 16. See
id.
Appellant argues the Specification provides adequate and detailed
support for the aforementioned limitation of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6–7;
see also Reply Br. 3–6. More specifically, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
the following portion of the Specification provides sufficient written
description support:
An advantage to reduce the positive voltage portion by a
constant amount in contrast to applying a divider circuitry may
in particular be observed if the received amplitude modulated
signal is composed of a relatively large carrier portion (having
a constant amplitude) and a relatively small signal portion
(having a varying amplitude encoding the intended data), i.e.
having a small modulation index. In this case, according to the
embodiment of the present invention, only the relatively large
carrier portion of the received amplitude modulated signal is
reduced but not the signal related portion, so that after
adjustment a modulation index may even be increased so that
demodulation may be more reliable and simpler. Furthermore,
thereby, a higher sensitivity of the data-reception may be
achieved and thereby, a wider distance range of data-reception
may be achieved.
Spec. 4:1–10 (emphasis added). However, the aforementioned portion of
Appellant’s Specification merely describes an advantage associated with the
claimed adjustment circuit reducing a positive voltage by a constant amount.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Appellant’s Specification does
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
5
not adequately disclose how the claimed adjustment circuit (described in
conjunction with the illustrated embodiments of Figures 3 and 4) selectively
reduces the voltage amplitude only when the positive voltage portion is
being induced without amplitude-based signal encoding. See Ans. 3–4.
In its Reply Brief, Appellant further cites the following portion of the
Specification as also providing sufficient written description support:
As an insert 318 on the left-hand side of Fig. 3, a trace 319
of an exemplary input amplitude modulated signal is indicated,
wherein a modulation or change of the amplitude of the signal
319 is not visible due to the low modulation index so that the
amplitude of the input amplitude modulated signal 319 appears
to stay at a constant level. However, this is not the case but the
amplitude of the amplitude modulated signal 319 in fact varies
with time.
Spec. 13:32–14:3 (emphasis added). As argued by Appellant, the input
amplitude modulated signal of trace 319 is an example of positive voltage
portion being induced without amplitude-based signal encoding.2 See Reply
Br. 4–6. We do not agree with Appellant’s premise that the input amplitude
modulated signal of trace 319 is an example of positive voltage portion
being induced without amplitude-based signal encoding. The Specification
clearly states that although “the amplitude of the input amplitude modulated
signal 319 appears to stay at a constant level. . . . [T]his is not the case” as
“the amplitude of the amplitude modulated signal 319 in fact varies with
time.” Spec. 13:33–14:3 (emphasis added). As Appellant’s Specification
indicates that a received amplitude modulated signal having a varying

2 Appellant quotes the Specification as “this is not the case [when] but the
amplitude of the amplitude modulated signal 319 in fact varies with time.”
Reply Br. 4. However, the edits in Appellant’s Reply Brief are Appellant’s
edits and do not appear in the original disclosure. See Spec. 14:2–3.
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
6
amplitude represents an amplitude modulated signal being induced with
amplitude-based signal encoding (see, e.g., Spec. 4:1–5), the input amplitude
modulated signal of trace 319 is an example of a positive voltage portion
being induced with amplitude-based signal encoding, as opposed to being
induced without amplitude-based signal encoding. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
The Examiner further finds that claim 3 separately fails to comply
with the written description requirement because claim 3 recites, in part, “a
second adjustment including a divider circuit configured and arranged
between the first adjustment circuit and the coil terminal,” and Appellant’s
Specification also does not disclose adequate support for this limitation. See
Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 4–5. Appellant separately disputes the
Examiner’s finding regarding claim 3. See Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply
Br. 6–7. We are persuaded of error with respect to the Examiner’s finding
regarding claim 3 for the reasons provided by Appellant. However, because
we are not persuaded of error with respect to the Examiner’s finding
regarding claim 1, for reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the
written description requirement, based on its dependence upon claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
7
Obviousness Rejection over Combination of Takiguchi and Tsukamoto and
Combination of Takiguchi, Tsukamoto, and Meltzer
The Examiner further rejects claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over either the combination of Takiguchi and Tsukamoto or the
combination of Takiguchi, Tsukamoto, and Meltzer. See Final Act. 8, 10.
In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds Takiguchi discloses, inter alia,
a waveform shaping circuit configured to allow a positive half of an input
response wave to pass through its diode series circuit and to allow a voltage
level (i.e., amplitude) of the response wave to be reduced by a predetermined
amount (i.e., “VF + VZ” where VF represents a forward voltage and where VZ
represents a zener voltage). See Final Act. 9 (citing Takiguchi ¶¶ 59–62, 66,
72); see also Takiguchi ¶ 63.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has failed to establish that
Takiguchi’s waveform circuit is configured to reduce a voltage amplitude of
the amplitude modulated signal, “when the positive voltage portion is being
induced without amplitude-based signal encoding but not when the positive
voltage portion is being induced with amplitude-based signal encoding,” as
recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 8. As further
argued by Appellant, Tsukamoto does not cure Takiguchi’s deficiencies.
See Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 8.3
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. More specifically,
similar to our conclusion that Appellant has not shown the aforementioned
limitation is adequately disclosed in Appellant’s Specification, we conclude

3 As Appellant’s argument regarding claim 1 is sufficient to persuade us that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we do
not reach Appellant’s separate argument respectively addressing the
rejection of claims 3, 4, and 8 (see Appeal Br. 10) and the Examiner’s
rationale for combining the cited references (see Appeal Br. 10–11).
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
8
the Examiner has not adequately shown that Takiguchi’s disclosure of a
waveform circuit configured to reduce a positive voltage of an input
response wave by a constant amount, combined with the disclosure of
Tsukamoto, teaches or suggests the aforementioned limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. The Examiner rejects independent claim 15 on the
same basis as claim 1, and therefore we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15. See Final Act. 8–10. As Meltzer does not cure the
identified deficiencies of Takiguchi and Tsukamoto, we also do not sustain
the rejection of independent claim 16, or the rejection of the pending
dependent claims, which depend from one of claims 1, 15, or 16.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 112(a) Written
Description
1–21
1, 15 103 Takiguchi,
Tsukamoto
1, 15
2–14, 16–21 103 Takiguchi,
Tsukamoto,
Meltzer
2–14, 16–21
Overall
Outcome
1–21
Appeal 2019-000070
Application 14/472,112
9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED