Ex Parte Bottomley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2013

10869456 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/869,456 06/16/2004 Gregory Edward Bottomley 4015-5193 6704
24112 7590 06/18/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY EDWARD BOTTOMLEY and CARMELA COZZO
_____________

Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 15-24, 26, 27, 29, 33-36, 38-42, and 44-46.
Claims 4, 25, and 43 were cancelled during prosecution. Claims 7, 8, 10-14,
28, 30-32, and 37 are objected to as depending on a rejected claim. Br. 2. 1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 22,
2010 (“Br.”); and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 28, 2010 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a signal-to-interference (“SIR”) processor in
an SIR estimator of a wireless receiver and method relating thereto. The
SIR processor comprises an initial SIR calculator, an average SIR calculator,
and a bias remover. The initial SIR calculator calculates the initial SIR
based on the signal received by the wireless receiver, while the average SIR
calculator generates an average SIR. Using the average SIR, the bias
remover removes the bias from the initial SIR. See generally Spec. 2, ll. 15-
21. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of removing bias from an initial signal-to-interference
ratio generated by a wireless receiver comprising:
calculating the initial signal-to-interference ratio based on a signal
received by the wireless receiver;
generating an average signal-to-interference ratio;
calculating a scaling factor based on the average signal-to-interference
ratio; and
multiplying the initial signal-to-interference ratio by the scaling factor
to remove the bias from the initial signal-to-interference ratio.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 15, 17, 19, 22, 33, 35, 38, 39, 42,
and 44 - 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iochi (EP
1239615 A1; issued Sept. 11, 2002). Ans. 3-6.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 40, and 41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iochi and Kitagawa
(EP 1111815 A1; issued June 27, 2001). Ans. 6-8.
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

3

3. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 9, 16, 18, 27, 29, 34, and 362
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iochi, Kitagawa, and
Yellin US 6,618,433 B1, issued Sept. 9, 2003). Ans. 9-11.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Iochi would have taught or suggested “multiplying the initial
signal-to-interference ratio by the scaling factor to remove the bias from the
initial signal-to-interference ratio”?
(2) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 by
finding that Iochi and Kitagawa would have taught or suggested “calculating
the scaling factor based on the average signal-to-interference ratio includes
modifying the average signal-to-interference ratio by an offset parameter”?

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 1, 15, 17, 19, 22, 33, 35, 38, 39, 42,
and 44 – 46

On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part,
“multiplying the initial signal-to-interference ratio by the scaling factor to
remove the bias from the initial signal-to-interference ratio.”
Appellants’ argument highlights the calculation of the “scaling
factor,” a necessary precursor to the multiplying step in dispute. Br. 5-7.
Appellants’ position is further refined by claiming Iochi fails to teach or

2 While claim 36 does not appear in the heading (Ans. 9), the rejection’s
body discusses this claim (see Ans. 11).
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

4

suggest calculating a scaling factor based on an average SIR. Br. 6. Finally,
Appellants contend Iochi necessarily fails to teach or suggest multiplying an
initial SIR estimate by such a scaling factor to remove bias from the initial
SIR estimate, as recited in claim 1. Id.
Appellants point out that Iochi’s correction coefficients, a, b, and c,
are not calculated based on the average SIR as claim 1 requires. Br. 6. As a
result, Appellants assert that Iochi fails to suggest multiplying an initial SIR
estimate by a scaling factor to remove bias from the initial SIR. Id.
The Examiner finds Iochi teaches an initial SIR. Ans. 4 (citing Iochi,
Fig. 12, elements 603, 605; ¶¶ [0005] - [0017]; [0075] - [0076]). The
average SIR, which is used to calculate the scaling factor, is further found to
be taught in Figure 12, elements 604 and 605. Id. The output of block 606
and of block 106 is used in Iochi to calculate the scaling factor based on the
average SIR out of block 606 and the Fixed Bias Error Correction Section
106 of Figure 12. Id. (citing Iochi ¶¶ [0080] - [0084]). The output out of
block 607 (i.e, the scaling factor) and then multiplied with the initial SIR
(e.g., 603) at block 608. Id.
We start by noting that Appellants do not specifically respond to the
Examiner’s rejection. While attempting to distinguish the calculation of a
scaling factor in Iochi from the claimed arrangement of claim 1, Appellants
do not address the relied-upon Figure 12 of Iochi. For example, Appellants
point to the correction coefficients as distinguishable over claim 1. Br. 6.
However, the coefficients are not specifically relied on by the Examiner.
See, Ans. 3-5, 12-14. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 maps Figure 12
of Iochi to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See Ans. 4. The Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

5

findings in doing so are supported by rational underpinnings as discussed
below.
Iochi is directly relevant to the claimed invention. A measured SIR
signal is corrected using coefficients a, b, and c, respectively for signal
power, interference signal power, and for fixed bias. Iochi, ¶ [0008].
Notwithstanding the preceding, the rejection must be based on the claim
language. The Answer gave particularity to the rejection of the disputed
limitation based on Figure 12 of Iochi. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds SIR
Calculation Section 606 and Fixed Bias Error Correction Section 106 are
used to calculate the scaling factor from the average SIR. Id.
Fundamentally, the Averaging Sections 604 and 605 operate on the received
signal. In turn, the output of the Averaging Sections is provided to the SIR
Calculation Section 606, which maps to the average SIR of claim 1.
As to the disputed multiplying limitation, the Examiner finds that
between the SIR Calculation Section 606, average SIR, and the Fixed Bias
Error Correction Section 106, a scaling factor is calculated at the Bias Error
Elimination Section 608. Ans. 4. As part of the process taught, correction
coefficients a and b are also applied to the Received Signal at 103 and 105.
See Fig. 12. A SIR Calculation is made at section 104. See id. As the
Examiner finds, a calculation is applied at Bias Error Calculation Section
607 using the calculated outputs of blocks 106 and 606 (the average SIR) to
produce a scaling factor. The output of block 607 is combined with the
initial SIR calculation (e.g, block 603) to remove the bias from the SIR at
Bias Error Elimination Section 608. See Ans. 4.
Concerning Appellants’ argument that Iochi equation or expression 4
is not the multiplication of claim 1, Appellants raise a straw man. As
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

6

already noted, equation 4 is not relied on by the Examiner in the rejection of
claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner rebuts the proposition by noting that
whatever scaling factor might be applied to the initial SIR is not made
unique by the type of mathematics applied. Ans. 13-14. A calculation is
made and saying that it is patentable because it is multiplication as opposed
to subtraction is an obvious difference well within the level of skill of the
ordinary artisan. Ans. 14.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and not
separately argued claim 22. Claims 15, 17, 19, 33, 35, 38, 39, 42, and 44 –
46 depend directly or indirectly on claims 1 and 22 and are not separately
argued and the rejection to those claims is therefore also sustained.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 2, 3, 5,
20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 40, and 41

Of claims 2, 3, 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 40, and 41, Appellants argue
separately only the patentability of claims 5 and 26. Each of claims 5 and 26
contain the limitation “calculating the scaling factor based on the average
signal-to-interference ratio includes modifying the average signal-to-
interference ratio by an offset parameter.” “[O]ffset parameter” is not
described in the Specification beyond its appearance in a scaling factor
equation. Spec. 14, l. 20-15, l. 2. Claim 5 is representative.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 based on Iochi and Kitagawa, finding
Kitagawa teaches calculating the scaling factor modified by an offset
parameter. Ans. 7 (citing Kitagawa, Fig. 4, element 203; ¶ [0026]). The
Examiner finds the “offset parameter” maps to Subtraction Section 203.
Further, Iochi’s Fixed Bias Error Correction Section 106 discloses a fixed
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

7

bias error correction operation, which could be modified using the
subtraction method disclosed by Kitagawa. Ans. 14-15. As Kitagawa is in
the same field of endeavor, there would have been a motivation to combine
Kitagawa with Iochi. See Ans. 7.
Appellants argue Kitagawa does not teach an offset parameter as a
“bias removing scaling factor.” Ans. 8. Appellants contend there is no
motivation to modify Iochi in view of Kitagawa. Id. Finally, Appellants
argue that Kitagawa’s method would render Iochi inoperable because Iochi
would no longer correct the bias error in a SIR calculation. Br. 8-9.
We first address the offset parameter of claim 5. The offset parameter
is not recited as having any relationship to bias correction, but simply
modifying the average SIR by a fixed amount. Accordingly, we find the
Appellants’ argument concerning bias scaling factor unpersuasive to
overcome the Examiner’s finding that Kitagawa teaches an offset parameter.
Our analysis as to whether Kitagawa would be combined with Iochi
starts with whether the two references are in the same or related fields of
endeavor. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Kitagawa relates to SIR measuring and to despreading signals. Kitagawa, ¶
(0057); Fig. 4. The field is the same or at least related to that of the claimed
invention, which discloses an SIR estimator using despread values. Spec. 2,
l. 23.
We then look to other factors such as whether design incentives and
other market forces would prompt variations of one reference. “[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

8

beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The Examiner finds a
reason to combine Kitagawa with Iochi showing a fixed bias error correction
operation, which could be modified using the subtraction method disclosed
by Kitagawa. See Ans. 7, 15 (discussing modifying the average SIR to assist
in removing bias).
The Specification is devoid of description concerning any advantage
associated with an offset parameter. The claim language does not add any
insight to any benefit. Therefore any benefit of applying an “offset
parameter” is left to speculation. The Examiner finds motivation from the
subtracting a reference SIR from the average SIR to assist in removing bias.
Ans. 7 (citing Kitagawa ¶ [0026]). This finding leads the Examiner to the
conclusion that the Kitagawa subtraction is an offset component. Id. Given
the lack of any benefit pointed out to the offset parameter, the Examiner has
shown enough to establish a reason with some rational underpinning to
combine the references.
The inoperability argument is also not persuasive. As the Examiner
finds, Iochi’s teaching of a bias scaling factor is not rendered inoperable by
application of an offset parameter. Ans. 15.
The rejections of claims 5 and 26 are therefore sustained. Claims 2, 3,
20, 21, 23, 24, 40, and 41 are not separately argued and are dependent on
rejected claims that we sustained in the above discussions. The rejection to
them is likewise sustained.

Appeal 2011-000469
Application 10/869,456

9

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 6, 9, 16, 18, 27, 29, 34, and
36
Claims 6, 9, 16, 18, 27, 29, 34, and 36 are dependent on claims where
we have sustained the Examiner’s rejection and are not separately argued.
The Examiner’s rejections of those claims are therefore sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, 15-24, 26, 27,
29, 33-36, 38-42, and 44-46 is affirmed.
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

rwk