Ex Parte Andrews et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 2012

10194610 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 2012)

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.
10/194,610 07/12/2002 Michael R. Andrews Andrews 7-12-1-26 1649
46303 7590 03/15/2012
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD, SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 96824
EXAMINER
HA, DAC V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL R. ANDREWS, PARTHA PRATIM MITRA,
KARIN SIGLOCH, and DAVID J. THOMSON
____________

Appeal 2009-014927
Application 10/194,610
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 3, 6, 12, and 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-014927
Application 10/194,610

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to techniques for communicating over
single- or multiple-antenna channels, where channels fluctuate both
temporally and spectrally (see Spec. 2:5-15).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows.
1. A method used in communication systems,
comprising:
determining one or more parameters of a channel model
that permits non-stationarity within each individual data
symbol; and
applying the one or more parameters to one or more
received symbols to determine one or more decoded symbols.
Claim Rejections
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Marchetto (US 5,513,215).
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marchetto.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Marchetto, Alard (US 6,263,029 B1), and Mendelson (US
5,539,412).
1

1
Claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, and 16, which were not included in the present
appeal, were canceled (see the communication mailed Sep. 4, 2009), claims
17-30 were previously canceled, and claims 7-11 were objected to for being
dependent upon a rejected base claim but would otherwise be allowable if
rewritten in independent form to include the limitations of their base claim
and any intervening claims. We defer correcting the dependency of any

Appeal 2009-014927
Application 10/194,610

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the claimed determining step is disclosed in
Figures 5B and 7 of Marchetto and the corresponding description in columns
9 and 11, showing a channel model used for determining the channel
impulse response (CIR), which is determined for each symbol and is
compensated for time and frequency variations in the received signal (Ans.
4-5). The Examiner further takes the position that the equalizer 122 and the
channel estimator 124 in Marchetto apply the determined parameters to the
received symbols as required by the claimed applying step (id.).
Appellants contend that Marchetto reconstructs the original symbols
without considering parameters of a channel model that permits “non-
stationarity within each individual data symbol,” or even addressing “the
subject of non-stationarity of data symbols” (App. Br. 4). Appellants
explain that the impulse response disclosed in Marchetto is time-dependent,
but not “nonstationary” within a data symbol (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3-4).
We agree with Appellants that Marchetto does not discuss the
parameters of a channel model that permits “non-stationarity within each
individual data symbol.” The Examiner has neither responded to
Appellants’ discussion of how Marchetto’s channel impulse response is
stationary within the symbols, nor identified any portion of the reference
related to the discussion of non-stationarity within the symbols. In other
words, while Marchetto mentions mitigating the effects of a dynamically
changing impulse response by compensating at least one of the sources of

claim that may be dependent upon a canceled claim to the Examiner and
Appellants.
Appeal 2009-014927
Application 10/194,610

4
distortion (see col. 3, ll. 36-53; col. 7, ll. 32-39; col. 11, ll. 27-47), the
Examiner has not pointed to, nor do we find, any teachings in Marchetto
discussing variation within a symbol.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 and claim 12, which includes a similar limitation, because Marchetto
does not disclose “one or more parameters of a channel model that permits
non-stationarity within each individual data symbol.” Therefore, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and 12, nor any of the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of dependent claims 3, 6, and 14.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 12, and 14 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ELD