Ex Parte Azadet et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

12474344 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/474,344 0512912009
24319 7590
Broadcom Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
05/16/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kameran Azadet
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
54-14-12-3 1371
EXAMINER
LIAO, HSINCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 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):
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TF~A.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMERAN AZADET, SAMER HIJAZI,
ALBERT MOLINA, and RAMON SANCHEZ
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18, which are all pending claims. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants state only "[ c ]laims 1, 5-10, and 14-18 are being appealed"
(see App. Br. 2); however, because claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 were not
canceled, we treat all pending claims as before us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.3l(c).
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction2
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "simultaneous estimation of
frequency offset and channel response for a communication system."
Abstract. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference:
1. An iterative method for estimating frequency offset and
channel response for a plurality of frequency resources,
compnsmg:
estimating the channel response for a set of users sharing
a given one of said frequency resources; and
estimating the frequency offset for said users in said set,
wherein a channel response and frequency offset of users not in
said set are maintained at their latest updated values.
References and Rejections
Claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Cheng (US 7,782,967 B2; Aug. 24, 2010) and Razoumov (US
2002/0093976 Al; July 18, 2002). Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 4, 8, 13, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Cheng, Razoumov, and Malladi (US 2008/0095108 Al;
Apr. 24, 2008). Final Act. 4-5.
2 Appellants' Reply Brief states that a "statement identifying related appeals
is contained in Appellants' Appeal Brief' and "Appellants hereby withdraw
the appeal of claims 11 and 21. Thus, Claims 1, 8, 12 and 22 are being
appealed." Reply Br. 1-2. These statements appear inapplicable to the
present appeal and are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Cheng, Razoumov, and Grundvig (US 2002/0137461 Al; Sept.
26, 2002). Final Act. 5.
Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Cheng, Razoumov, and Hui (US 2004/0198296 Al; Oct.
7, 2004). Final Act. 5-6.
Claims 7 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Cheng, Razoumov, and Gale (US 2009/0186590 Al; July 23,
2009). Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Cheng, Razoumov, and Nuutinen (US 2010/0093300 Al; Apr.
15, 201). Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the conclusions and
findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action, the Advisory
Action, and Examiner's Answer as our own, and we highlight the following
points for emphasis.
A. Independent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1
and 10, because
[E]ach independent claim requires 'a set of users sharing a given
one of said frequency resources,' ... [i]n other words, the present
claims require grouping users that transmit simultaneously in the
same spectrum (subcarriers transmitted in the same frequency
3
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
from different users are superimposed (added) at the base
station). In Cheng's method, however, the users do not transmit
in the same subcarriers.
App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During examination,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Here, Appellants' Specification provides, at most, examples, but
no narrowing definitions, of the recited "frequency resources."3 Therefore,
we conclude the Examiner reasonably construed the recited "users sharing a
given one of said frequency resources" as encompassing Cheng's teaching
of users sharing a particular range of frequencies, the range centered on a
selected carrier frequency. See Cheng 5:40-50, 9:5-15; see also Final Act.
2, Ans. 2-3.
Appellants further argue "the proposed combination of Cheng and
Razoumov is improper." App. Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants contend: (1)
"Razoumov's determining of the Doppler frequency in par. 0028 for a single
mobile unit teaches away from the present invention" and, (2) in Cheng,
"since users do not share the same sub-carrier, as indicated above, the idea
of 'interference cancellation' is not a consideration, so Cheng's method
would not benefit from iterative processing, in the sense that each iteration
would benefit from the previous one." Id. at 7.
3 We note Appellants' proffered example from the Specification does not
discuss the claimed "frequency resources"; rather, the example discusses an
exemplary scheme using "frequency bands" and a "frequency channel,"
neither of which are terms recited by the claim. See Reply Br. 3; Spec.
4:18-23.
4
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Regarding the first
contention, Appellants describe certain embodiments of Razoumov but do
not persuade us that Razoumov discourages investigation into the invention
claimed. See Razoumov Fig. 2; see also Ans. 3--4. Regarding the second
contention, Appellants' argument is unpersuasive for not being
commensurate with the claim language, as claims 1 and 10 do not recite
"interference cancellation."4 See App. Br. 7. Rather, on the record before
us, we do not find that combining the cited references was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an
unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 10.
B. Dependent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting 5, 6, 14, and 15,
because "the Cheng environment would not benefit from an iterative
process. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
combine Cheng with the iterative process of Razoumov and/or Hui." App.
Br. 8-9. Appellants, however, do not provide sufficient evidence or
reasoning to show why Cheng would not benefit from an iterative process, as
found by the Examiner. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is
4 Additionally, we note the term "iterative method" is not recited in claim
10, and is recited only in the preamble of claim 1. See IMS Tech., Inc. v.
Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
5
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to
rebut a prima facie case of obviousness"). Thus, we do not find the
Examiner erred in combining Cheng, Razoumov, and Hui. See Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 7
and 16, because Gale's "complex factor is not a frequency offset" and
"Appellants see no discussion in [Gale] of the calculation of values for
antennas 2 to n-1 based on the value for antenna l." Reply Br. 8-9; see also
App. Br. 9. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive as such arguments fail
to address the Examiner's rejection: the Examiner finds the combination of
references teaches the disputed limitation, as "Cheng discloses 'estimating
the frequency offset' and Gale discloses [the] first antenna parameter is used
for at least one additional antenna." Ans. 5 (citing Cheng 9:5-15; Gale
iii! 9-13). We agree with the Examiner's findings, as Gale discloses the
values al,t and H1 are parameters for a first antenna of a set of n antennas,
and these parameters are used to calculate transmitter values for each
antenna of the set. See Gale iJ 10.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 8
and 17, because "the Examiner has not established a prima facie case for
combining Malladi with Cheng and Razoumov." App. Br. 10. Appellants
similarly argue that "the Examiner has not established a prima facie case for
combining Nuutinen with Cheng and Razoumov" in rejecting dependent
claims 9 and 18. Id. We are not persuaded the Examiner's combinations of
Cheng and Razoumov with Malladi or Nuutinen are improper, because we
find the Examiner has provided explanations that constitute articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal
conclusions of obviousness. See Ans. 5-7; Final Act. 4-5, 7. In contrast,
6
Appeal2014-006469
Application 12/474,344
Appellants have not demonstrated why such rationales are erroneous or why
a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int 'l Game Tech., 184
F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations removed) (a reason to combine
teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings
within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those
skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved."); see also
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("When a work is
available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces
can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
claims 5-9 and 14-18 obvious in view of the cited references.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-10, and 14-18.
Appellants advance no further argument for dependent claims 3, 4, 12, and
13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-18 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7