Ex parte BALZ

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2001

08751057 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte CHRISTOPH BALZ
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2 and 4-7, all of the pending claims. Claim 3 has
been canceled.
The invention is directed to a graphical display of IQ
values on an IQ plane, the IQ values emitted at the output of
a demodulator for quadrature-amplitude-modulated (QAM)
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
2
signals. In particular, a processor connected to the IQ
output of the demodulator determines an associated IQ value
address in a data memory for each IQ value and a respective
frequency is stored under each address of the data memory,
wherein the respective frequency is a frequency with which a
respective address, thereby the corresponding IQ value, has
been determined in a predetermined acquisition time. That is,
each address has stored thereunder, the number of times a
signal status occurs within a predetermined acquisition time.
The predetermined acquisition time is set by a control switch.
If the processor determines, within the predetermined time
span, that an IQ value is allocated to an address of the data
memory, and thereby to a respective pixel position, the
processor increases the content of that data memory address by
one. In this manner, under each address of the data memory is
stored the frequency with which this address, and thereby the
associated pixel, respectively occurs.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
3
1. An arrangement for graphically
displaying, in an IQ plane on a screen of a
display device, IQ values emitted at an output
of a demodulator for quadrature-amplitude-
modulated signals, comprising:
a data memory;
a processor, that controls the display
device, connected to the data memory;
a respective address of the data memory
allocated to each individual IQ value and a
respective pixel of the display device allocated
to each address of the data memory;
the processor directly connected to the IQ
output of the demodulator, the processor
determining an associated IQ value address in
the data memory for each IQ value.; and
a respective frequency stored under each
address of the data memory, the respective
frequency being a frequency with which a
respective address of the dates, and thereby the
corresponding IQ value, has been determined in a
predetermined acquisition time.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Gray 5,479,606 Dec. 26,
1995
Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art
[APA], ostensibly the admission, in the background section of
the instant specification, that it was known to display IQ
values emitted at the output of a demodulator for QAM signals.
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
4
Claims 1, 2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Gray in view of APA.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The only dispute between appellant and the examiner is
with regard to the claimed "frequency" limitation.
It is the examiner’s position that Gray teaches a
respective frequency stored under each address. As evidence,
the examiner cites column 6, lines 42-67, of Gray. The
examiner contends that that section of the patent refers to an
input complex data being converted into a pixel descriptor
word and a pixel address word. Lines 54-56 of the cited
portion does recite that the "frequency data is applied to the
address multiplexer 24 so that frequency is available to
determine data pixel position."
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
5
Appellant contends that whereas, in the instant
invention, "frequency" means how often the corresponding IQ
values occur during the predetermined time under each address,
in Gray, "frequency" is the frequency of a scan signal line
which can be calculated and displayed, as shown in Figures 3
or 4 of the patent [see page 6 of the brief]. Thus, it is
appellant’s contention that Gray and the instant claimed
invention are not directed to the same "frequency."
While we cannot say, with certainty, that the frequency
discussed by Gray and that recited in the instant claims are,
indeed, the same, Gray does disclose, at lines 63-64 of column
6, that "data frequency can control pixel color." It appears
to us, from the disclosure at page 2 of the instant
specification, that appellant’s invention also relates
frequency of data to pixel color. In view of these
disclosures and appellant’s failure to point to anything
specific in Gray to convince us that Gray’s frequency is
anything different than the frequency discussed, we do not
find appellant’s observation regarding Gray’s "frequency of a
scan signal line" [brief-page 6] convincing.
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
6
Even so, each of the instant claims requires that the
respective frequency be "stored" under each address of the
data memory and the examiner has not convincingly pointed to
any suggestion, within Gray, for storing any "frequency" of
IQ values. While we agree with the examiner that the look-up
tables (LUT) of Gray are memories, it does not appear from
Gray’s disclosure that a "frequency" is stored in the LUT.
Rather, the LUT converts complex data to 8 bit phase and
magnitude data. The output of the LUTs, in Gray, can be made
proportional to phase or frequency [column 6, lines 49-50],
but while the LUT outputs may represent frequency values,
there is no indication that Gray stores these frequency
values, as does the instant claimed invention, and the
examiner has pointed to nothing that would have suggested that
it would have been obvious to do so.
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
7
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,
2 and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/sld
Appeal No. 1999-2688
Application No. 08/751,057
SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE
PATENT DEPARTMENT
7100 SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606-6473