Cohen, Gaby Gur et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 9, 2019

13106092 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 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.
13/106,092 05/12/2011 Gaby Gur Cohen Va_EchoCanceller 4580
16759 7590 08/09/2019
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box 294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
EXAMINER
MARCELO, MELVIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2019 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):
ari@activekn.com
gil@activekn.com
taltiber@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GABY GUR COHEN and EYRAN LIDA1
____________

Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30, all of the pending claims in
the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Valens Semiconductor Ltd.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–6, 9, and 27–29 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a transceiver for a wired
communication link including an efficiently implemented Interpolated
Adaptive Finite Impulse Response (IAFIR) echo canceller. Spec. 1:14–15,
2:5–8, Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Representative claim 7, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
7. A transceiver comprising: a receiver, a transmitter, a
hardwired Interpolated Adaptive Finite Impulse Response
(IAFIR) echo canceller, and an analog to digital converter (ADC)
block;
the receiver configured to extract symbols at a received_clock
rate using the ADC block;
the transmitter configured to transmit symbols at a
transmit_clock that equals (received_clock/L), where L is a
rational number greater than two; whereby the transmitter causes
an echo interference at input of the receiver;
the hardwired IAFIR echo canceller comprising a predetermined
bitrate echo canceller unit, followed by a polyphase filter
interpolator;
the predetermined bitrate echo canceller unit configured to
generate an estimated echo replica at the received_clock rate to
cancel the echo interference at input of the ADC block;
the echo canceller comprising N coefficients partitioned to L
serial filters of N/L coefficients; on each received_clock cycle, a
single filter is activated so that after L cycles output of the echo
canceller is ready for interpolation;
the hardwired IAFIR echo canceller is characterized by being
able to update the N coefficients gradually at a rate that is higher
than echo channel variation rate and lower than
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
3

(received_clock/L), wherein the update is a function of error
signal;
wherein a single adaptation unit is used to adapt all the N
coefficients serially, and the die footprint of the single adaptation
unit is less than 10% of the size of a die footprint of a standard
transceiver having number of adaptation units equal to the
number of coefficients.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Farhang-Boroujeny et al (US 6,853,626 B1; issued Feb. 8,
2005, “Farhang-Boroujeny”) and Levonas et al. (US 7,068,780 B1; issued
June 27, 2006, “Levonas”) and in further view of Lin (US 2003/0142687
A1; published Jul. 31, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief, the Answer, and the Reply Brief. We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific
findings, conclusions, and arguments below for emphasis.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner finds “the die footprint of the single adaptation unit is
less than 10% of the size of a die footprint of a standard transceiver having
number of adaptation units equal to the number of coefficients” as recited in
independent claim 7, and recited similarly in independent claims 23 and 30,
renders the claims indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
4

invention. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that the Specification fails
to provide a definition to establish the scope of “size of die footprint of a
standard transceiver” or “size of die housing a standard echo cancelation
mechanism.” See id. According to the Examiner, “[i]t is not clear what
constitutes the ‘standards’ in terms of size.” Id. The Examiner further finds,
“there does not appear to be any known standard for the size of a die
footprint of [a] transceiver having a number of adaptation units equal to the
number of coefficients.” See Ans. 3. The Examiner notes that references to
an object that is variable may render a claim indefinite (citing MPEP
2173(b)), and further finds “there is no known standard for the size of a die
footprint of the recited standard transceiver so that 10% of a variable
parameter would [] be[] indeterminate.” Id.
Appellants argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art will
understand how to determine the size based on the Specification disclosure
at page 11 lines 18–22. See Br. 10. According to Appellants, “the
disclosure describes the area in relative terms. A PHOSITA knows the area
required for a full implementation, and therefore would know how to
calculate whether an area is less than 10% from the full implementation of
the interpolated echo canceller.” Id. at 10–11. Appellants contend that the
absolute value of the die in square millimeters is not important because it
depends on the technology. See id. Finally, Appellants assert that the
relative dimensions used by Appellants are the most reasonable dimensions
to describe the silicon area savings achieved by the claimed invention. See
id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants attorney arguments, unsupported
by objective evidence, regarding what a PHOSITA would know regarding a
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
5

full implementation of the echo canceller. In particular, the Specification
does not disclose the details of a “full implementation of the interpolated
echo canceller.” Instead, the Specification merely discloses:
In one embodiment, the echo canceller has a single adaptation
unit configured to adapt one coefficient every received_clock.
In this case, the area saving is reduced by factor N comparing to
the full implementation of the interpolated echo canceller. In
one embodiment the echo canceller has a single adaptation unit
configured to adapt one coefficient every received_clock/L.
Therefore, the area saving is reduced by factor N comparing to
the full implementation of interpolated echo canceller, and the
power saving is reduced by factor of NL comparing to the full
implementation of the echo canceller.
Spec. 11:15–22. This disclosure, however does not describe or define the
“full implementation of the interpolated echo canceller,” and the size of a die
for a “full implementation of the interpolated echo canceller.” See id.
Moreover, we note that this same disclosure suggests that the area savings
compared to the “full implementation of the interpolated echo canceller” is a
result of the “single adaptation unit” being “configured to adapt one
coefficient every received_clock” instead of the result of using a single
adaptation unit alone. See id. Nonetheless, this disclosure does not describe
the number of coefficients that are adapted every received_clock in the “full
implementation of the interpolated echo canceller,” compared to “adapt[ing]
one coefficient every received_clock/L.” See id. For these reasons, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 as indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter the applicant regards as the invention.
In addition, we note that “the die footprint of the single adaptation
unit is less than 10% of the size of a die footprint of a standard transceiver
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
6

having number of adaptation units equal to the number of coefficients,” as
recited in independent claims 7, 23, and 30, is not consistent with the
Specification. Instead of comparing the die footprint of a single adaptation
unit to a die footprint of a standard transceiver, the Specification discloses
comparing the die size of an echo canceller with the die size of a standard
echo canceller, and comparing the die size of a transceiver to the size of a
standard die housing a typical transceiver. In particular, the Specification
discloses:
In one embodiment, the efficient FIR coefficient adaptation unit
292 is combined with echo canceller 210 and polyphase filter
interpolator 211 in the same silicon die. The result may be a die
that is less than 25% the size of a die housing a standard echo
cancelation mechanism. In a case that a FIR coefficient
adaptation unit 292 includes only one calculation element, the
size of a die housing the full duplex asymmetric transceiver 100
may be less than 10% of the size of a standard die housing a
typical transceiver solution.
Spec. 11:1–8. For this additional reason, claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 are
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter the applicant regards as the invention.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As a matter of procedure, we reverse the prior art rejection of
claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 due to the indefiniteness of the claims discussed
above. When the analysis of the claims indicates the need for “considerable
speculation as to [the] meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to
the scope of [the] claims,” a rejection of the claims based on prior art is
likely imprudent. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862–63 (CCPA 1962). It
should be understood, however, that our reversal does not reflect on the
merits of the underlying prior art rejections.
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
7

Nonetheless, we provide the following analysis to address Appellants’
arguments regarding the limitation “wherein a single adaptation unit is used
to adapt all the N coefficients serially,” as recited in independent claim 7.
The Examiner finds that Levonas teaches or suggests this limitation based on
Levonas’s disclosure of a single adaptation unit in Figure 5 which performs
the adaptation of the N coefficients serially in Figure 6. See Final Act. 4
(citing Levonas 11:55–12:25, Figs. 5–6). Appellants contend that Levonas’s
short-term echo component canceller and long-term echo component
cancellers shown in Fig. 5 cannot be interpreted as a single adaptation unit
because they work in parallel and not in serial, and because the short-term
echo component canceller and long-tail echo component cancellers include
multiple adaptation units. See Br. 12 (reproducing Levonas Fig. 5); see id. at
13 (asserting Levonas Fig. 5 describes a parallel implementation, and the
short-term echo component canceller 210 and long-tail echo component
canceller are two units).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Levonas’s Figure 5 shows the output of the short-
term echo component canceller is fed into the input of the long-tail echo
component canceller, thereby teaching serial adaptation of coefficients. See
Ans. 4. Appellants’ argument that Levonas shows two adaptation units is
not persuasive because the Examiner finds that Levonas’s short-term echo
component canceller and long-term echo component cancellers teach the
single adaptation unit. The language of independent claims 7, 23, and 30
does not preclude more than one calculation element or echo component
canceller from the scope of “a single adaptation unit.” Nor does the
language of independent claims 7, 23, and 30 require the single adaptation
Appeal 2019-000205
Application 13/106,092
8

unit to have only a single calculation element, similar to one embodiment
disclosed in the Specification (see Spec. 10:23–27).
Finally, Appellants argue that Levonas does not teach “a single
adaptation unit” because Levonas teaches multiple taps. See Br. 14–16
(quoting Levonas 10:11–11:48). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive
of error because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim
limitations. Independent claims 7, 23, and 30 do not recite or require a
single adaptation unit to have only a single tap.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7, 8, 10–26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed pro forma.
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