Maxlinear, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 2020

14155120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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. 14/155,120 01/14/2014 Curtis Ling 26466US02 9321 23446 7590 08/11/2020 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER TIMORY, KABIR A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2020 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CURTIS LING and RAJASEKHAR PULLELA ____________________ Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,1201 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–22, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Maxlinear, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 14, 2014, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 18, 2018, the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 31, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 26, 2018, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 20, 2019. Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to methods and systems for communication using a multi-standard receiver that receives an input radio frequency (RF) signal comprising at least two RF signals of different communication standards, separates the input RF signal into two signals based on their different communication standards, and applies configurable gain levels to equalize magnitudes of the two signals. (Abstract.) Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for communication, the method comprising: in a radio frequency (RF) receiver in an electronic device: receiving an input radio frequency (RF) signal comprising at least two RF signals of different communication standards from a single antenna or wired connection; separating the input RF signal into at least two RF signals based on their different communication standards; amplifying the at least two RF signals by applying configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes, wherein said configurable gain levels are based on measured signal strengths of said at least two RF signals; filtering the amplified RF signals utilizing a configurable filter for each amplified RF signal; combining the filtered RF signals to a single RF output signal utilizing a combiner; and converting the single output RF signal to a digital signal utilizing a single time-interleaved analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to the combiner. (Appeal Br. 20–23 (Claims App.).) Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 3 REJECTION & REFERENCES Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Corral (US 2012/0140804 A1, published June 7, 2012) (“Corral”), Aggarwal et al. (US 2013/0335163 A1, published Dec. 19, 2013) (“Aggarwal”), and Shahzad Saleem, Adaptive Blind Calibration of Gain and Timing Mismatches in a Time-Interleaved ADC - A Performance Analysis, 2012 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings 2672–77 (2012) (“Saleem”). (Final Act. 5–14.) ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1–14, 18, 19, 21, and 22 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Corral teaches separating an input RF signal into at least two RF signals based on their different communication standards, and amplifying the at least two RF signals by applying configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes, as claimed. (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4–6.) Particularly, the Examiner finds Corral describes splitting a multi-band signal into two or more independent frequency band signals and “adjusting the gain associated with each of the frequency band signals,” and “the Examiner considers ‘adjusting the gain associated with each of the frequency band signals’ to be [the claimed] ‘equalizing magnitudes’ within the broad meaning of the term.” (Ans. 4–5 (citing Corral ¶¶ 15, 18).) We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that Corral does not teach or suggest amplifying at least two RF signals of different communication standards, by applying configurable gain levels to equalize their magnitudes, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 7–10.) As Appellant explains, Corral teaches Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 4 balancing signal-to-noise ratios to maximize the data rate, which “is simply not the same as equalizing signal magnitudes.” (Id. at 8–9.) Particularly, Corral “explicitly teaches configuring different signal levels” whereby the highband signal’s level is lower than (e.g., 30 dB below) the lowband signal’s level. (Id. at 9–10 (citing Corral ¶¶ 14, 18–19); see also Reply Br. 2–3.) Thus, Coral teaches “explicitly the opposite of equalizing magnitudes, and there is no cited text that does disclose equalization of magnitudes.” (Appeal Br. 9.) We further agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed term equalize their magnitudes to mean “adjusting the gain associated with each of the frequency bands” is “not a reasonable interpretation of the term . . . because it says absolutely nothing about ‘equalizing’ anything, but merely adjusting gain in different frequency bands.” (Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed term equalizing magnitudes as reading on Corral’s generic gain adjustment is unduly broad and disregards Appellant’s Specification and the understanding of a skilled artisan.3 (Id. at 2–3.) As the Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Aggarwal and Saleem cure the above-noted deficiencies of Corral, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claim 8 and dependent claim 18 reciting the same equalizing limitation as claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7, 9– 3 Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion (that Appellant’s Specification “does not provide any specific teaching and description of ‘equalize magnitudes,’” see Ans. 6), the Specification provides that signals’ magnitudes are equalized when signals’ strengths become “roughly equal” or “approximately equal.” (See Spec. ¶¶ 25, 28, 33, and 42.) Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 5 14, 19, 21, and 22, depending from one of claims 1, 8, and 18. Because the above-discussed issue is dispositive as to the rejections of dependent claims 3, 4, 10, and 11, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments as to the rejections of claims 3, 4, 10, and 11. (See Appeal Br. 12–13.) Rejection of Claims 15–17 and 20 Appellant submits the same arguments for independent claim 15 as for claim 1. (See Appeal Br. 6–10.) Independent claim 15, however, does not require equalizing magnitudes as recited in claim 1 discussed supra. Claim 15 merely recites that “gain levels of said variable gain stages are configured based on measured signal strengths of RF signals at said outputs of said diplexer.” We are also unpersuaded that the remaining limitations of claim 15 are not taught or suggested by the cited art. (See Appeal Br. 11.) In particular, Appellant argues the cited art “does not explicitly or implicitly teach receiving at least two RF signals from a single antenna or wired connection.” (Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3–4.) As the Examiner finds, however, Corral teaches a diplexer (signal splitter) coupled to a single antenna or wired connection providing RF signals as required by claim 15. (Ans. 8–10 (citing Corral ¶¶ 13, 19, 48, Abstract, Fig. 6); Final Act. 6 (citing Corral ¶ 43).) For example, Corral teaches a signal splitter (splitting unit 122 or 602) coupled to a single antenna or wired connection (Corral’s antenna or powerline communication system). (See Corral ¶¶ 13, 17 (“the transmitting device 102 is a powerline communication device”), 19 (“On receiving the multi-band RF signal from the transmitting device 102, the Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 6 receiver band splitting unit 122 splits the received multi-band signal into a highband signal . . . and a lowband signal”), 43 (“transmitting device 102 can also comprise . . . an antenna to transmit the multi-band RF signal”), Figs. 1 and 6.) In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 15, and dependent claim 20 for which no separate arguments for patentability are provided. Appellant separately argues dependent claims 16 and 17, reciting “said diplexer [of claim 15] is off-chip” (claim 16) and “said diplexer is integrated on said chip [carrying the RF receiver of claim 15]” (claim 17). (Appeal Br. 15–16.) In particular, Appellant argues Corral’s paragraph 56 (cited by the Examiner) does not mention components being off-chip or on- chip. (See id.) However, Corral’s paragraph 56 mentions hardware/circuit embodiments, exemplified at paragraphs 58–59 by an “electronic device 800” including “a processor unit 802” and functionalities implemented by, inter alia, “a band-splitting unit 822” (e.g., diplexer). (See Corral ¶¶ 56, 58– 59.) Paragraph 59 further provides “[a]ny one of the above-described functionalities may be partially (or entirely) implemented in hardware and/or on the processor unit 802. . . . in logic implemented in the processor unit 802, in a co-processor on a peripheral device or card, etc.,” thereby teaching and suggesting a diplexer positioned off-chip or on-chip as required by claims 16 and 17. (See Corral ¶ 59 (emphases added).) In light of the above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 17. Appeal 2019-002704 Application 14/155,120 7 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14, 18, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–22 103(a) Corral, Aggarwal, Saleem 15–17, 20 1–14, 18, 19, 21, 22 Overall Outcome 15–17, 20 1–14, 18, 19, 21, 22 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART