Ex Parte Atarius et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2006

09204370 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication in a law journal and is not binding precedent
of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROOZBEH ATARIUS, TORSTEN J. CARLSSON, HAKAN B. ERIKSSON,
KJELL B. GUSTAFSSON, TORGNY PALENIUS, and CHRISTER OSTBERG
____________

Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before BARRETT, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29,
and 31, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to the configuration of a RAKE
receiver in a radio communication system. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for configuring a RAKE receiver with N
fingers, the apparatus comprising:

a first stage, the first stage configured to use an input
signal to find a set of more than N paths;

Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

2

a second stage, the second stage configured to use the first
set of more than N paths, the input signal and a quality of
signal from the RAKE receiver to generate a set of N paths, the
second stage generates the set of N paths more frequently than
the first stage generates the set of more than N paths; and

a third stage, the third stage configured to use the set of
N paths to configure the N fingers of the RAKE receiver.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Kubo et al. (Kubo) 6,456,827 Sep. 24, 2002
(Filed Jul. 28, 1998)
Daudelin 6,072,807 Jun. 06, 2000
(Filed Dec. 09, 1997)
Bruckert et al. (Bruckert) 5,987,012 Nov. 16, 1999
(Filed Dec. 19, 1996)

Kitaide1 JP 10-164011 Jun. 19, 1998
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kitaide in view of Daudelin.
Claims 1 through 10, 13 through 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29,
and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kitaide in view of Daudelin and Kubo.

1 We will refer to the machine-assisted translation by
Thomson Derwent dated January 30, 2003.
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

3
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kitaide in view of Daudelin, Kubo, and
Bruckert.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 16,
mailed August 26, 2003) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed April 2, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
20, filed January 20, 2004) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.

OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 9, 14 through
16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31 but affirm the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 13.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, the examiner asserts (Final
Rejection, page 5) that Kitaide discloses in Figure 2 a RAKE
receiver that includes an input signal, a searcher 200, and a
selector made up of tracker 202, spreading code generator 203,
searching process part 206, synthesis equipment 210 and path
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

4

selection equipment 209. The examiner further contends that
Kitaide discloses in paragraph 21 "using the input signal and the
candidate paths to select a smaller set of candidate paths, where
the selector comprises k*M correlators to generate M estimates,
where K correlators are assigned to each of the selected paths."
According to the examiner, the only limitation lacking from
Kitaide is that the selector receives a quality signal from the
RAKE receiver. The examiner turns to Daudelin for a teaching to
use a quality signal from the RAKE receiver to select the smaller
set of candidate paths.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that Daudelin discloses
that finger assignor uses the paths searched and the signal
quality provided by the RAKE receiver to assign the fingers for
tracking particular paths, not for selecting a smaller set of
candidate paths. Appellants continue (Brief, page 7) that
Daudelin's RAKE receiver provides a quality signal to a searcher
(i.e., the finger assignor), and, thus, Daudelin fails to suggest
providing a quality signal to a selector. We disagree. As
explained by the examiner (Answer, page 4), "although finger
assignor 404 [of Daudelin] includes a searcher element 411, the
finger assignor also performs the function of assigning or
selecting constituent paths to fingers of RAKE receiver 407 (col.
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

5

4, line 67 to col. 5, line 3)." Further, Daudelin states (column
3, lines 8-10) that a "rake receiver will offer the best
performance when its fingers are, at every instant, demodulating
the best constituent signals." Therefore, it would have been
obvious to include in Kitaide's selector Daudelin's quality
signals received from the rake receiver for the best rake
receiver performance.
Nonetheless, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 19 and 21 because we find other limitations lacking from
the combination of references. Specifically, we find nothing in
paragraph 21 of Kitaide nor anywhere else in either reference
that suggests that "the selector comprises k*M correlators to
generate M estimates, where K correlators are assigned to each of
the selected paths," as indicated by the examiner. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 19 and 21.
For claims 1 through 7 and 13, the examiner stated (Final
Rejection, page 6) that Kitaide does not disclose that the second
stage uses a quality signal from the RAKE receiver nor that it
generates the set of N paths more frequently than the first stage
generates the set of more than N paths. The examiner applied
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

6

Daudelin for the quality signal and added Kubo for a suggestion
that the second stage generates paths more frequently than the
first stage.
Appellants (Brief, pages 10-11) admit that Kitaide does, in
fact, disclose that the second stage generates N paths more
frequently than the first stage generates more than N paths.
Thus, Kubo is merely cumulative. As to the quality signal,
appellants argue (Brief, page 10) that Kitaide and Daudelin fail
to disclose or suggest using a quality signal from the RAKE
receiver. However, as discussed supra, we find that Daudelin
does suggest using a quality signal from the RAKE receiver.
Accordingly, we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims
1 through 7 and 13.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, appellants (Brief, page 12)
assert that Kitaide, Daudelin, and Kubo do not disclose or
suggest the use of a matched filter to generate the more than N
paths. Appellants state (Brief, page 12) that "merely because
matched filters and correlators are allegedly well recognized art
equivalents does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify Kita[i]de to use matched
filters." Appellants continue (Brief, pages 12-13) that their
application teaches away from the substitution by indicating that
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

7

matched filters are "costly and computationally complex. It is
not only time-consuming; it also decreases the battery life of
hand-held units."
However, a matched filter appears to be a type of correlator
since it generates correlation values (see, for example, Kubo,
column 5, lines 58-60). As any type of correlator can be used
for Kitaide's correlators, it would have been obvious to use a
matched filter. Furthermore, as to appellants' argument that
matched filters are costly, computationally complex, time-
consuming, and harsh on battery life, such reasons do not explain
why it wouldn't have been obvious from a technical standpoint to
use a matched filter. "[T]he fact that the two disclosed
apparatus would not be combined by businessmen for economic
reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done
because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some
technological incompatability that prevented their combination.
Only the latter fact is telling one [sic] the issue of
nonobviousness." Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702
F.2d 1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
As to claim 9, the examiner (Answer, page 9) explains that
Kubo discloses . . . a searcher can be placed in an
inactive mode . . . to prevent the search operation
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

8
from being performed more than needed and conserve
power consumed by the searcher. . . . The searcher is
thus placed in an inactive mode, while the rest of the
receiver continues to operate and demodulate the
received signals. Since part of the operation of the
"selector" of Kita[i]de includes the ability to not
wait for the end of a searching process to provide a
new set of paths . . . it would have been fairly
suggested . . . that while the searcher is placed
in an inactive mode, the selector would continue to
operate, providing new paths to the RAKE receiver as
necessary.
However, in Kitaide, if the selector starts operating before the
searching process ends, the searching process (or first stage)
continues to be active, not inactive, while the selector (or
second stage) generates a new set of N paths. Therefore, we
cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 9.
Claim 14 includes the same limitation that we found lacking
from the combination of Kitaide, Daudelin, and Kubo (i.e., that
the selector generates a new set of paths while the searcher is
inactive). Thus, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 14 for the same reasons explained supra with regard to
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

9

claim 9. Similarly, since claims 15, 16, and 18 depend from
claim 14, we likewise cannot sustain the rejection of claims 15,
16, and 18.
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, appellants contend (Brief,
page 15) that none of the three references, Kitaide, Daudelin,
and Kubo, discloses or suggests the step of updating the second
set of paths without updating the first set of paths. Appellants
assert (Brief, page 15) that the combination of the three
references as proposed by the examiner would, at best, disclose
not updating the second set of paths until the expiration of a
time period. We agree. We find nothing in any of the references
that would suggest updating the second set of paths without
updating the first set of paths (or rather while the first stage
is inactive). Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 22, 24, and 26.
Claims 27, 29, and 31 recite that the second set of paths is
updated without updating the first set of paths, a limitation we
found lacking from the combination of Kitaide, Daudelin, and
Kubo. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 27,
29, and 31 for the same reasons explained supra with regard to
claims 22, 24, and 26.
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

10
Appellants' sole argument for claims 11 and 12 (Brief, page
18) is that "Bruckert does not overcome the above-identified
deficiencies of the combination of Kita[i]de, Daudelin and Kubo
with respect to claim 1." Since we found no error in the
examiner's application of Kitaide, Daudelin, and Kubo against
claim 1, and appellants have presented no arguments as to
Bruckert and the additional limitations, we will sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 16,
18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed as to claims 9, 14 through 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26,
27, 29, and 31 but affirmed as to claims 1 through 8 and 10
through 13. Accordingly, the examiner's decision is affirmed-in-
part.
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2005-2229
Application No. 09/204,370

12

BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PC(INCLUDING BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER &
MATHIS)POST OFFICE BOX 1404ALEXANDRIA VA 22313-1404