1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to an RF power amplifier architecture that significantly reduces an amplifier's out-of-band emissions.
2. Background Art
A principle goal of communication systems is to maximize spectrum efficiency via the use of broadband waveforms transmitting over non-contiguous spectrum and to minimize the waveform's adjacent power level. A goal of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Future Combat Systems (FCS) and other programs is the development of the orthogonal frequency-division modulation (OFDM) for use with tactical systems. The OFDM waveform has perhaps the best combination of multipath and Eb/No properties of any waveform. Unfortunately, the OFDM waveform has a high peak to average voltage ratio, which requires very high amplifier linearity to suppress out-of-band emissions. This is a very significant problem that prevents the OFDM waveform in some scenarios because high power, linear amplifiers are not cost effective in many designs. Some designers believe that the OFDM out-of-band emission problem is so severe that single carrier waveforms with special equalization are the preferred solution (see Falconer, David et al., Frequency Domain Equalization for Single-Carrier Broadband Wireless Systems, IEEE Communications Magazine, April 2002). The proposed technology directly mitigates the OFDM out-of-band emission problem, thus enabling OFDM to be widely applicable in tactical situations.
Minimizing out-of-band and spurious emissions is a very challenging aspect of multi-band radio design. FCC regulations and interference predictions (detailed below) present typical maximum emission values. To achieve low emissions, a combination of high third order intercept amplifiers and tracking filters are required. The filters must be high-Q bandpass filters with the passband set close to the desired output bandwidth. The filters must have high third order intercept points to avoid contributing to the problem they are fixing. These amplifiers and filters are expensive, are large, require high prime power, and are heavy. State-of-the-art broadband, high performance tunable filters are manufactured by PoleZero Corporation. The high IP3 performance (>+50 dBm) PoleZero product is the “Power-Pole” Filter. This device requires approximately 7.5 W of prime power, is several inches in size, and is expensive (˜$2 k each). The frequency coverage is only 10 MHz to 700 MHz and each device has a 3:1 tuning ratio.
The required amplifier performance level to obtain low spurious emissions is difficult if not impossible to easily attain in prior art radios. Many radios economize on this part of the design and suffer serious operational limitations or have great difficulties in getting spectrum authorization.
These problems are compounded in the next generation of multi-band radios because the large frequency range and the use of variable transmit bandwidths increases the number of required filters. The goal of transmitting a non-contiguous spectrum requires even greater filter flexibility to accommodate “tailoring” of the transmitted spectrum. It is believed that a “brute-force” amplifier/filtering approach to achieve acceptably low spurious emissions with a multi-band radio, and to achieve reasonable cost, size, weight, and power goals is not possible with current technology.
The maximum permitted spurious transmitted power levels are quite small and require high RF performance to achieve. The maximum power can be determined via two methods. Both methods are used in the current debate on authorizing Ultra-Wide Band (UWB) devices (see filed comments on Docket 98-153 at www.fcc.gov). This debate is relevant because broadband waveforms create wide bandwidth noise over the approximately the same frequency band that is widely used for terrestrial, tactical communications (20 MHz to 3,000 MHz). Many users within this band have filed comments regarding wideband noise interference applicable to their specific systems, making available detailed, applicable interference analysis.
The first method (“Noise Floor Method”) to estimate the maximum spurious transmitter power level determines the maximum broadband noise level that can be transmitted that would cause a small (3 dB) rise in the victim receiver's thermal noise floor at a certain distance. Using the free-space range equation, omniantennas and a 6 dB victim noise figure,
The second method (“Part 15 Method”) to estimate the maximum spurious transmitted power level is to adopt FCC Part 15 (CFR Part 15.209), standards for the amount of unintended power radiated. This standard is a field strength level (100 uV/meter from 30-88 MHz, 150 uV/meter from 88 216 MHz, 200 uV/meter from 216-960 MHz, and 500 uV/meter at greater than 960 MHz) at 3 meters range from the device.
These two methods provide different power levels, which is partially the key issue in the UWB debate and also creates uncertainty on what levels should be adopted. Several groups have argued that the Part 15 levels are too high for UWB devices and need to be reduced, especially in the GPS bands (1559 MHz-1610 MHz). The FCC has proposed a 12 dB reduction to the Part 15 limit to a value of −53.2 dBm/MHz, FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking FCC 00-163. These arguments are related to the high peak to average power ratio of the UWB signal and the large number of expected UWB devices, and may not be applicable to an advanced broadband waveform. The UWB arguments are also focused on interference with nearby (several meters) devices and not with distant (100s of meters) victim receivers. It is believed that the Part 15 requirements are more than adequate for tactical purposes and that the Noise Floor Method is the most applicable. The exception is within the GPS bands wherein the FCC's recommendation of the maximum emission level of −53.2 dBm/MHz appears to be reasonable. Table 1 summarizes the recommended emission levels detailed above.
1Except for GPS band.
What these maximum permitted spurious power levels means is that a non-contiguous waveform must have very low out-of-band emissions to avoid causing interference, and a need exists to have systems that are capable of achieving these low out-of-band emissions.
Present day amplifiers are incapable of achieving these low emissions. In this regard, estimates of the out-band emission levels of RF amplifiers with different third order intercept points (IP3) are shown in
Comparing with the allowable emission levels as shown in Table 1 indicates that with this waveform and power level, an output amplifier with IP3˜+55 dBm is required. An amplifier with IP3>+60 dBm is required to protect the GPS band, which is not feasible within the SWP constraints of tactical radios. Current multi-band amplifiers have IP3 values of about +42 dBm, Stanford Microdevices SGA-9289 (IP3=42.5 dBm). Thus, burdensome post amplifier bandpass filtering will be required to achieve low spurious output levels with this example waveform, which we believe is similar to what is envisioned for future tactical radios.
Commercially available multi-band RF amplifiers have limited dynamic range performance. It is likely that commercial amplifiers small enough for tactical operations will not have high enough IP3 performance to produce a useful spectrum notch.
Table 2 shows the performance of several types of commercially available RF amplifiers. The performance of the recently introduced WJ Communications AH1 amplifier is shown in the first row. The WJ AH1 is small enough to be useful for small, handheld devices. It's IP3 level of +41 dBm would produce power out-of-band emissions similar to what is shown in
An extreme example is the Spectran MCPA 4080, which is a narrowband PCS base station amplifier. It has excellent RF performance over a narrow (1930 MHz to 1990 MHz) frequency range and would support a low out-of-band emission, non-contiguous waveform. But the required power level of 1130 W is prohibitive, even for vehicle applications. Thus, current amplifiers are still lacking in supporting a low out-of-band emission, non-contiguous waveform.
As such, there is a need for improved amplifiers that reduce an amplifier's spurious emission to maximize spectrum efficiency. The present invention responds to this need by the development of an improved amplifier system that reduces out-of-band emissions, this eliminating significant interference to existing narrow bandwidth users.
It is a first object of the present invention to provide an improved amplifier system to reduce an amplifier's out-of-band emissions.
The invention entails a new and novel RF power amplifier architecture that significantly reduces an amplifier's out-of-band emissions. This will enable a principle communications goal, to maximize spectrum efficiency via the use of broadband waveforms transmitting over non-contiguous spectrum. The proposed amplifier design reduces out-of-band emissions in the waveform's spectrum holes so they will not cause significant interference to existing narrow bandwidth users operating within the waveform holes. Existing amplifiers will create significant out-band emissions and will severely limit the use of non-contiguous waveforms. The invention also reduces the normal adjacent channel out-of-band emissions.
The proposed sub-band transmitter (SBT) concept minimizes spurious emissions by breaking the transmitted signal into narrow spectrum sub-bands, amplifying each separately, and then combining the signals. This reduces distortion because the spurious spectrum width is dependent on the input spectrum width to each amplifier. By amplifying the spectrum in narrow sub-bands, the spurious energy is not allowed to spread to frequencies away from the desired signal.
The SBT concept's benefit is that it reduces the required amplifier IP3 value (saving prime power) and mitigates the need for highly flexible tracking filters. The only transmit filtering required will be for the removal of harmonic distortion, which can be accomplished with a simple filter design. One embodiment uses four sub-bands to obtain >40 of dB of spurious signal reduction. Of course, other embodiments could use more than four sub-bands, e.g., up to ten sub-bands, which will be practical and will provide exceptional RF performance requiring the use of minimal guard bands.
The inventive sub-band transmitter can easily be implemented. Future transceivers use digital methods and D/A converters at the modem, and can easily divide the signal into spectral sub-bands. Having parallel up-converter chains is easily accommodated because the local oscillator can be shared between the channels and the remaining “parallelized” parts are low cost and low power.
Other objects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent as a description thereof proceeds.
In satisfaction of the foregoing objects and advantages, the present invention provides improvements in methods and systems involving transmission of signal by vastly reducing spurious emissions. In one method aspect, the invention is an improvement in the method of transmitting a signal based on a received analog input signal wherein the input signal is amplified for transmission via an antenna. According to the invention, the input signal is subdivided into a plurality of sub-bands, with each subdivided signal up-converted, amplified, and then combined for transmission via the antenna.
The invention also entails calibrating each sub-band's relative amplitude and phase values so that the combined signals approximate the input signal to be transmitted. One calibration method involves making an initial relative amplitude and phase measurement, and then making subsequent amplitude only measurements using a swept CW signal for each sub-band to determine amplitude and phase corrections for each sub-band.
An alternate calibration method involves generating a pair of CW signals and iteratively varying the relative amplitude and phases of the pair of CW signals until a summed output is minimized to determine the relative amplitude and phase values for the subdividing step.
A third alternative involves generating a test signal, amplifying the test signal and looping back the amplified signal to a receiver and modulator for measuring of the amplitude and phase of the looped back signal relative to the amplitude and phase of a signal corresponding to the analog input. A variation of the third alternative involves providing a test signal, amplifying the test signal and transmitting the amplified test signal using a first transceiver to a second transceiver. Then, the relative amplitude and phase values of the transmitted test signal is determined by digitizing the test signal, transforming the digitized signal into sub-bands, and amplifying the sub-bands. The second transceiver transmits the determined relative amplitude and phase values back to the first transceiver to set the amplitude and phase of the sub-bands for the subdividing step. The first receiver can include a loop back switch to allow transmission of the test signal to the second transceiver and receipt of the determined relative amplitude and phase. The second transceiver can include a loop back switch to receive the transmitted test signal, and to permit transmission of the determined relative amplitude and phase of the sub-bands to the first transceiver. The test signal can comprise a number of test signals, each test signal transmitted over the same frequency range using different spreading codes.
The invention also provides a system architecture that is improved over systems wherein an analog input signal is transmitted via an antenna using an up-converter and an amplifier. According to the invention, a processing module is provided that converts the received analog input signal into a digital signal, parses the digitized signal into a plurality of sub-bands, calibrates the sub-bands, and converts each sub-band into an analog signal. An up-converter and amplifier is provided for each sub-band. A combiner combines each of the amplified sub bands for transmission. Means can be provided for calibrating out amplitude and phase differences in each digitized sub-band. The calibrating means can include means for generating a test signal corresponding to each sub-band and measuring the output signal for each sub-band to determine amplitude only or amplitude and phase corrections.
In an alternate mode, the system calibrates using means for generating a pair of test signals and varying the amplitude and phase of the test signals, and means for detecting the zero output signal of the combiner to determine the amplitude and phase values for the digitized sub-bands.
In yet another alternate mode, the calibrating means further comprises means for generating a test signal for output by one of the amplifiers, and a loop back switch downstream of the one amplifier, a transceiver receiving output from the loop back switch; output of the transceiver being sent to the processing module, the processing module measuring the amplitude and phase of the output from the transceiver relative to the test signal input to determine amplitude and phase corrections. A further variation of this mode, first and second transmitter systems are provided. The output of the loop back switch of the first transmitter system is transmitted to the transceiver of the second transmitter system, the second transmitter system transforming the test signal into sub-bands and numerically determining the relative amplitude and phases of the sub-bands, and then transmitting the numerically determined relative amplitude and phases to the first transmitter system for setting of the amplitude and phase values.
The invention also entails a universal processing module for transmitting an analog input signal that comprises an analog to digital converter for digitizing the analog input signal and means for subdividing the digitized signal into a plurality of sub-bands and calibrating the sub-bands to account for amplitude and phase differences. A digital to analog converter is provided for each sub-band, the output of each digital to analog converter adapted for later up-converting, amplification, and combining into one signal for transmission purposes. A detector is also provided that is adapted to receive a sample of the combined output signal of the amplified sub-bands, and to send the sample to the subdividing means as part of calibrating the sub-bands. The subdividing means further comprises a microprocessor adapted to receive the output from the detector for calibration purposes.
Reference is now made to the drawings of the invention wherein:
The inventive sub-band transmitter system greatly reduces spurious emissions by amplifying narrow spectrum sub-band “slices” and then combining them to obtain the full spectrum.
For comparison,
In the sub band method, amplitude and phase differences between the transmitter channels are minimized during the system's manufacture, and drifts with time or temperature are calibrated out. The calibration technique (described later) utilizes a built in test system with a loop back circuit to the associated receiver, or via feedback from other receivers. The calibration is further simplified if the modem is flexible enough to put the entire signal through one channel or send continuous wave (CW) calibration signals on each channel for diagnostic or calibration purposes (also described later).
An alternate configuration 30 shown in
A key sub-band transmitter issue is calibration of each sub-band signal path's relative amplitude and phase so that the combined signal approximates the desired signal. The specific relative amplitude and phase requirements will vary for different waveform types, but are likely to be a several tenths of a dB in amplitude and a few degrees in phase. These will probably not be met with RF hardware manufacturing tolerances and will probably require periodic recalibration to account for temperature effects, different output frequencies, or output power levels. The calibration may also need to be updated if there are changes in the output impedance due to changes in the antenna or the feed line.
The present invention has three alternate schemes of calibrations. The first is to directly measure the transfer characteristics of each channel using a swept CW signal. In this mode, the signal does not require demodulation. The second mode is a cancellation technique where the relative amplitude and phase of pairs of signals are iteratively varied until the summed output is minimized, thus determining the relative amplitude and phase values. The third mode involves using waveforms with different spreading codes on each channel, demodulating the signals, and using signal processing to determine the relative amplitude and phase.
The calibration method selection depends on the characteristics of the hardware's amplitude and phase differences between the sub-bands and the level of integration between the SBT amplifier and the receiver.
The first and simplest method involves initially measuring the relative amplitude and phase of each sub-band using external equipment during manufacture and then an amplitude only calibration for in-field adjustments. The amplitude only system is shown in
The principle advantage of this technique is that it is independent of the receiver 38 and would accommodate a low cost, fully integrated amplifier design.
The second calibration mode uses cancellation to determine the relative amplitude and phase between channels. Referring now to
The desired operational amplitude and phase values for normal transmission have the two signals equal in amplitude and in phase. Thus, the operational amplitude and phase values are the cancellation values with an additional 180° phase change.
This processes is repeated with the other channels while keeping one channel as a reference.
The advantage of this method is that is independent of the receiver 38 and would accommodate a low cost, fully integrated amplifier design. The disadvantage of this method is that the combiner must be able-to dissipate large power levels. However, it is believed that the iterative technique will occur so rapidly that little energy will be adsorbed by the combiner and that that the combiner only need to be able to withstand a high transient voltage (10 W peak power would create about 31 volts) and not sustained high power levels.
Referring now to
A variation of the third calibration method is to have pairs of nodes 91 calibrate themselves using a communications link loop method as shown in
To initiate the process when there is no information on the relative sub-band amplitude and phases, a single sub-band could be used for low rate communications between the transceivers until the relative amplitudes and phases are measured.
The communications link loop back approach potentially is the lowest cost calibration method because it requires no additional RF hardware for calibration.
An extension of the third calibration technique is to have the modem transmit calibration signals with different waveforms on the same sub-band channel.
This extension of the third method calibration of the third method is to integrate the calibration procedure with the equalizer used by the receiver 94 to compensate for multipath. Multipath generates similar amplitude and phase variations with frequency as the differences between the RF chains in the sub-band architecture. The receiver 94 automatically corrects for the multipath amplitude/phase variations and would also correct for the RF chain amplitude/phase variations.
To maximize the application of the sub-band transmitter technology to a wide range of applications, including defense-related applications, an architecture is desired that is independent of the output frequency, the waveform type, the modem design, and the frequency up conversion process. In the embodiment of
The universal module 101 uses the cancellation calibration method shown in
The universal module 101 is comprised of an A/D converter 105, FFT functions 107, parse and calibration 108, and D/A components 111. The largest cost would be for the FPGA or ASIC used for the FFT and other digital operations. Depending on the waveform type, the module's hardware cost would be approximately the same as the modem cost because they have similar processing loads.
The universal module 101 would be applicable to nearly any wide bandwidth radio needing high transmit power (>5 W). There would also be a significant commercial market for cellular base stations and other high power applications.
The inventive sub-band transmitter is novel compared to the technical approach used in present high power, low distortion amplifiers. Practically all multi-carrier power amplifier designs are based on the feed-forward architecture. This architecture, as shown in
Feed-forward is a well-established, solid architecture. It has important advantages such as high performance across large bandwidths as well, as unconditional stability. It also has serious drawbacks, which have historically limited the economy and performance of the power amplifier. The most serious limitation of the feed-forward architecture is its requirement for an extremely accurate RF design. This is needed because of the two signal subtractions performed; one in the signal cancellation loop at 126 and one in the error cancellation loop at 130. The accuracy of these subtractions requires that the two signals be matched in delay to fractions of a nanosecond, in amplitude to tenths of a dB, and in phase to tenths of a degree. Typically, this accuracy must be maintained over 25 MHz of bandwidth, across the entire temperature range of the equipment, for a range of DC voltages, and for a large dynamic range of the amplified signal. Providing all this in a very reliable, low cost, mass-produced, high power unit proved to be an extremely difficult technological challenge.
The inventive sub-band transmitter concept reduces unintended emissions by an entirely different method than the feed-forward method. The inventive sub-band transmitter limits the frequency range of the, distortion signals by limiting the frequency range that each active device must amplify.
It should be noted that the both the inventive sub-band transmitter and the feed-forward techniques can be used together to further improve the amplifier's performance.
The sub-band transmitter of the invention is provides vast improvements over the prior art by significantly reducing a power amplifier's undesired out-of-band emissions. A detailed time-domain simulation was performed using Matlab that estimated the spurious emission levels of each of the three amplifier architectures described in the previous section. A well-known Taylor series expansion amplifier model was used. This model simulates the non-linear effects of a RF amplifier and the model was used in the analysis presented in several of the figures discussed below.
The amplifier was modeled using a traditional Taylor Series expansion (see Rohde and Newkirk, Wireless Circuit Design, 91 (2000)). The expansion coefficients (k1, k2, and k3) are related to IP3 and IP2 as shown below. The IP2 value was 10 dB larger than the IP3 value. The IP3 was parametrically varied. The “Taylor Series” amplifier model is
y=k1*x+k2*x.*x+3*x.*x.*x;
where
Using the model described above, the input signal was a 27 dBm-power level, broadband signal with 1024 equally spaced tones spaced over a 20 MHz bandwidth centered at 100 MHz.
The sub-band transmitter of
As such, an invention has been disclosed in terms of preferred embodiments thereof which fulfills each and every one of the objects of the present invention as set forth above and provides new and improved RF power amplifier architecture.
Of course, various changes, modifications and alterations from the teachings of the present invention may be contemplated by those skilled in the art without departing from the intended spirit and scope thereof. It is intended that the present invention only be limited by the terms of the appended claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/861,476 filed Jun. 7, 2004, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,409,010 on Aug. 5, 2008, which claims priority under 35 USC 119(e) to provisional patent application No. 60/477,155 filed on Jun. 10, 2003, the disclosure of each of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety.
This invention was made with Government support under Contract F3062-03-C-0141 awarded by the Air Force. The Government has certain rights in this invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3893064 | Nishihara et al. | Jul 1975 | A |
3935572 | Broniwitz et al. | Jan 1976 | A |
4107613 | Queen et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4119964 | Fletcher et al. | Oct 1978 | A |
4227255 | Carrick et al. | Oct 1980 | A |
4305150 | Richmond et al. | Dec 1981 | A |
4398220 | Satoh | Aug 1983 | A |
4501020 | Wakeman | Feb 1985 | A |
4672657 | Dershowitz | Jun 1987 | A |
4736453 | Schloemer | Apr 1988 | A |
4783780 | Alexis | Nov 1988 | A |
4803703 | DeLuca et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4878238 | Rash et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4881271 | Yamauchi | Nov 1989 | A |
4918730 | Schulze | Apr 1990 | A |
4977612 | Wilson | Dec 1990 | A |
5040238 | Comroe et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5093924 | Toshiyuki et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5093927 | Shanley | Mar 1992 | A |
5142690 | McMullan et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5142691 | Freeburg et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5151747 | Nourrcier | Sep 1992 | A |
5155590 | Beyers et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5162937 | Heidemann et al. | Nov 1992 | A |
5177604 | Martinez | Jan 1993 | A |
5177767 | Kato | Jan 1993 | A |
5179722 | Gunmar et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5203012 | Patsiokas et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5225902 | McMullan, Jr. | Jul 1993 | A |
5239676 | Strawczynski et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5247701 | Comroe et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5260974 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5271036 | Lobert et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5276908 | Koohgoli et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5325088 | Willard et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5375123 | Andersson et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5402523 | Berg | Mar 1995 | A |
5410737 | Jones | Apr 1995 | A |
5412658 | Arnold et al. | May 1995 | A |
5422912 | Asser et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5422930 | McDonald et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5428819 | Wang et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5448753 | Ahl et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5475868 | Duque-Anton et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5497505 | Koohgoli et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5502688 | Recchione et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5511233 | Otten | Apr 1996 | A |
5548809 | Lemson | Aug 1996 | A |
5553081 | Downey et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5585850 | Schwaller | Dec 1996 | A |
5608727 | Perreault et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5655217 | Lemson | Aug 1997 | A |
5668747 | Ohashi | Sep 1997 | A |
5748678 | Valentine et al. | May 1998 | A |
5752164 | Jones | May 1998 | A |
5794151 | McDonald et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5822686 | Lundberg et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828948 | Almgren et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5850605 | Souissi et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5862487 | Fujii et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5884181 | Arnold et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889821 | Arnstein et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5939887 | Schmidt et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5943622 | Yamashita | Aug 1999 | A |
5960351 | Przelomiec | Sep 1999 | A |
5999561 | Naden et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6011970 | McCarthy | Jan 2000 | A |
6044090 | Grau et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6047175 | Trompower | Apr 2000 | A |
6049707 | Buer et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6049717 | Dufour et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6141557 | Dipiazza | Oct 2000 | A |
6147553 | Kolanek | Nov 2000 | A |
6154501 | Friedman | Nov 2000 | A |
6157811 | Dent | Dec 2000 | A |
6178328 | Tang et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6188873 | Wickman et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208858 | Antonio et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6240274 | Izadpanah | May 2001 | B1 |
6269331 | Alanara et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6295289 | Ionescu et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6304140 | Thron et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6356555 | Rakib et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6380879 | Kober et al. | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6522885 | Tang et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6526264 | Sugar et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6529715 | Kitko et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6570444 | Wright | May 2003 | B2 |
6597301 | Cerra | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6606593 | Jarvinen et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615040 | Benveniste | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625111 | Sudo | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6671503 | Niwamoto | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675012 | Gray | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6687492 | Sugar et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6690746 | Sills et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6697436 | Wright et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6700450 | Rogers | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714605 | Sugar et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714780 | Antonio et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6728517 | Sugar et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6771957 | Chitrapu | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785520 | Sugar et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6792268 | Benveniste et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6799020 | Heidmann et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6816832 | Alanara et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6847678 | Berezdivin et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6850735 | Sugar et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6850764 | Patel | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862456 | Sugar et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6904269 | Deshpande et al. | Jun 2005 | B1 |
6941110 | Kloper et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6952563 | Brown et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6959178 | Macedo et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6965762 | Sugar et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6990087 | Rao et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6993440 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7013345 | Brown et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7035593 | Miller et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7054625 | Kawasaki et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058383 | Sugar et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7089014 | Brown et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7227974 | Kamijo et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7260156 | Krupezevic et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7269151 | Diener et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7313393 | Chitrapu | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7342876 | Bellur et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7424268 | Diener et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7428270 | Dubuc et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7457295 | Saunders et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7463952 | Bidou et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7483700 | Buchwald et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7532857 | Simon | May 2009 | B2 |
7564816 | McHenry et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7610036 | Teo et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7613148 | Hong et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7616604 | Abdelhamid et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7742764 | Gillig et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7826839 | Nicholas | Nov 2010 | B1 |
20010013834 | Yamazaki | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010046843 | Alanara et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020002052 | McHenry | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020196842 | Onggosanusi et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030020651 | Crilly et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030027577 | Brown et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030081628 | Sugar et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030099218 | Tillotson | May 2003 | A1 |
20030165187 | Tesfai et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030181173 | Sugar et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030181211 | Razavilar et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030181213 | Sugar et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030198200 | Diener et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030203743 | Sugar et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040017268 | Rogers | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040023674 | Miller | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040047324 | Diener | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040072546 | Sugar et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040121753 | Sugar et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040136466 | Tesfai et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040142696 | Saunders et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040203474 | Miller et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050070294 | Lyle et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050119006 | Cave et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050192011 | Hong et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050213580 | Mayer et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050213763 | Owen et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050270218 | Chiodini | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060075467 | Sanda et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060211395 | Waltho | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060220944 | Ikeda | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060234716 | Vesterinen et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060246836 | Simon | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060247505 | Siddiqui | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070008875 | Gerhardt et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019603 | Gerhardt et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070046467 | Chakraborty et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070047474 | Anderson | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070053410 | Mahonen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070076745 | Manjeshwar et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070091998 | Woo et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070100922 | Ashish | May 2007 | A1 |
20070165577 | Baker et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070165664 | Gerhardt et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070165695 | Gerhardt et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070183338 | Singh et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070253394 | Horiguchi et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070254596 | Corson et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080010040 | McGehee | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080014880 | Hyon et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080031143 | Ostrosky | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080069079 | Jacobs | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080228446 | Baraniuk et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080259859 | Cordeiro et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080261537 | Chen | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080267259 | Budampati et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080284648 | Takada et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090040986 | Cordeiro et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090074033 | Kattwinkel | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090161610 | Kang et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090190508 | Kattwinkel | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090252178 | Huttunen et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100008312 | Viswanath | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100220618 | Kwon et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100296078 | Forrer et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110051645 | Hong et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1220499 | Mar 2002 | EP |
2260879 | Apr 1993 | GA |
WO2004054280 | Jun 2004 | WO |
WO 2006-101489 | Sep 2006 | WO |
WO 2007-034461 | Mar 2007 | WO |
WO2007058490 | May 2007 | WO |
WO2007094604 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO2007096819 | Aug 2007 | WO |
WO2007108963 | Sep 2007 | WO |
WO2007108966 | Sep 2007 | WO |
WO2007109169 | Sep 2007 | WO |
WO2007109170 | Sep 2007 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090052572 A1 | Feb 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60477155 | Jun 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10861476 | Jun 2004 | US |
Child | 12171450 | US |