Maxlinear Asia Singapore Private Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 4, 2021

2019005146 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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. 14/610,073 01/30/2015 Igal Yehuda KUSHNIR M3921.10020US02 2847 164869 7590 01/04/2021 MB - MAXLINEAR, INC. 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 Park City, UT 84098 EXAMINER CADEAU, WEDNEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2021 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): d@mabr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IGAL YEHUDA KUSHNIR Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 Technology Center 2600 BEFORE JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, 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, 3–6, 8–12, 14–19, 23, and 24. Claims 2, 7, 13, and 20–22 are cancelled. 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 MaxLinear Asia Singapore Pte Ltd. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “microwave systems, including systems for minimizing impairments generated during upconversion and downconversion in microwave systems.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: An indoor unit (IDU), comprising: an oscillator configured to provide a first signal at a first frequency; a down-converter configured to receive the first signal and a second signal having a second frequency generated by an outdoor unit (ODU) coupled to the IDU, wherein the down- converter is configured to down-convert the second signal using the first signal; and an error correction module coupled to the oscillator and the down-converter, wherein the error correction module is configured to adjust the first frequency, of the first signal provided by the oscillator, by an output frequency of the down- converter, wherein the error correction module comprises a first least mean square (LMS) adaptation module prior to the first frequency adjustment and a second LMS adaptation module operable to correct I/Q mismatch after the first frequency adjustment. Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Halik US 5,325,401 June 28, 1994 Shen US 6,327,302 B1 Dec. 4, 2001 Muhammad US 6,650,649 B1 Nov. 18, 2003 Forenza US 2008/0118004 A1 May 22, 2008 Cheng US 2010/0296002 A1 Nov. 25, 2010 Horikoshi US 2013/0308960 A1 Nov. 21, 2013 REJECTION(S) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 9–12, and 14 as unpatentable over Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, and Forenza. Final Act. 4–9. The Examiner rejected claims 3–6, 8, 15–19, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, Forenza, and Muhammad. Final Act. 9–12. OPINION THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON HALIK, CHENG, HORIKOSHI, SHEN, AND FORENZA Claims 1, 9–12, and 14 Appellant argues that Forenza fails to teach or suggest “a second LMS adaptation module operable to correct I/Q mismatch,” as required by claim 1. See also Appeal Br. 7 (relying on the same argument for independent claims 9 and 14). In particular, Appellant asserts that Forenza’s precoding matrix is not equivalent to the claimed second LMS adaption module. See Appeal Br. 5–6; Reply Br 2–4. Appellant explains that Forenza’s precoding matrix is in the base station, not the receiver. Id. Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 4 Appellant’s annotated Figure 13 is reproduced below: Annotated Figure 13 of Forenza identifying the Base Station computes the preceding matrix to cancel inter-carrier and inter-user interference caused by I/Q imbalance. As shown, according to Appellant, Forenza teaches “the Base Station [i.e. transmitter] computes the preceding matrix to cancel inter-carrier and inter- user interference caused by I/Q imbalance.’ Forenza at ¶ l45.” Appeal Br. 5 (alteration in original). This argument, however, fails to consider that Forenza also teaches correcting for I/Q mismatch at the receiver. For example, as the Examiner points out, Forenza “teaches a communication system wherein I/Q imbalance/mismatch can be corrected using zero-forcing (ZF), minimum mean-square error (MMSE) or maximum likelihood (ML) receiver to suppress residual interference (Forenza [0145], [0151], [0159).” Final Act. 6 (emphasis added). See also Forenza ¶ 145 (noting that “the user devices demodulate data via zero-forcing (ZF), minimum mean-square error Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 5 (MMSE) or maximum likelihood (ML) receiver to suppress residual interference.”); Forenza ¶ 158 (“The use of an I/Q aware DIDO receiver that cancels ICI (due to I/Q mismatch) via ZF receiver in DIDO-OFDM systems. . . .”); Forenza ¶ 160 (“The use of an I/Q aware DIDO receiver that cancels ICI (due to I/Q mismatch) via ZF or MMSE filter in DIDOOFDM systems.”). As such, we are not persuaded that Forenza only teaches I/Q correction at a transmitter. Appellant also argues that Forenza fails to teach or suggest the claimed correcting of I/Q mismatch because Forenza only teaches correcting the effect of I/Q mismatch, namely inter-carrier interference (ICI) and correcting inter-user interference (IUI). Appeal Br. 6–7. According to Appellant, “[n]either correcting inter-carrier interference (ICI) nor correcting inter-user interference (IUI) is equivalent to correcting I/Q mismatch as claimed.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Appellant explains Because ICI (as caused by Doppler shift, for example) can occur in the absence of I/Q mismatch, correcting ICI is not, as the OAs allege without support, necessarily related to being “operable to correct I/Q mismatch” as claimed. The alleged BRI of “correct I/Q mismatch” is therefore unreasonable. Appeal Br. 6. We disagree. Forenza expressly contemplates interference “due to I/Q mismatch.” See, e.g., Final Act. 6; Forenza ¶¶ 145, 151, 159, 160. A skilled artisan, thus, would understand that even though ICI and IUI inference could also be caused by Doppler shift, Forenza’s express teaches correcting the interference that is due to I/Q mismatch. See, e.g., Forenza ¶¶ 145, 151, 159, 160; Answer 5–6 (explaining that Forenza teaches canceling interference due to I/Q mismatch at the receiver using minimum mean-square error (MMSE) and noting that this is similar to the Specification’s disclosure). Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 6 We also disagree that the Examiner’s interpretation of correcting I/Q mismatch is unreasonably broad. The claim merely recites a second LMS adaption module operable to correct of I/Q mismatch, without limiting how the correction occurs or the cause of I/Q mismatch. As such, a skilled artisan would understand Forenza’s correcting the interference caused by I/Q mismatch is at least one reasonable way to correct I/Q mismatch. Therefore, we agree that Forenza teaches this limitation and are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that Forenza teaches a second LMS adaptation module operable to correct I/Q mismatch. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 9–12, and 14 as unpatentable over Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, and Forenza. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON HALIK, CHENG, HORIKOSHI, SHEN, FORENZA, AND MUHAMMAD Claims 3–6, 8, 15–19, 23, 24 With respect to claim 3, Appellant argues that Muhammad fails to teach or suggest communication between the IDU and a second IDU. Instead, according to Appellant, Muhammad only teaches impairments between Muhammad’s ODUs. See Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Appeal Br. 9– 11(presenting the same argument for claims 4, 5, 6, 15, and 17). We disagree. As the Examiner points out, “Muhammad teaches a communication system where the IDUs communicated with each other via outdoor units (Muhammad fig. 2).” Final Act. 10 (emphasis omitted). For example, as shown in Muhammad’s Figure 2 below, IDSs 202 and 214 communicate through the ODUs 206 and 212. Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 7 Figure 2 of Muhammad depicting the communication path between IDUs 202 and 214 through ODUs 212 and 208 and communication link 210. Muhammad, notably, discloses the same arrangement as disclosed in the Specification. As shown below in Figure 1, IDUs 120a and 120b communicate through ODUs 110a and 110b. Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 8 Figure 1 of the Specification depicting the communication path between IDUs 120a and 120b through ODUs 110a and 110b and communication link 150. As the Examiner further explains, “any impairment occurring during communication between the ODUs also occurs between the IDUs during communication.” Ans. 8. See also Spec. ¶¶ 38–39 (describing sources of error and including error introduced by ODUs 110a and 110b). As such, we are not persuaded that Muhammad fails to teach or suggest the claimed communication between the IDU and a second IDU. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we affirm the rejection of claims 3–6, 8, 15–19, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, Forenza, and Muhammad. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–6, 8–12, 14–19, 23, and 24 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9–12, 14 103 Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, Forenza 1, 9–12, 14 3–6, 8, 15– 19, 23, 24 103 Halik, Cheng, Horikoshi, Shen, Forenza, Muhammad 3–6, 8, 15– 19, 23, 24 Overall Outcome 1, 3–6, 8– 12, 14–19, 23, 24 Appeal 2019-005146 Application 14/610,073 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