Ex Parte Boutros et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2012

10848076 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH BOUTROS, NICOLAS GRESSET and LOIC BRUNEL
____________

Appeal 2010-010168
Application 10/848,076
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010168
Application 10/848,076

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1 and 5-131. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
REVERSE. An oral hearing was held on December 03, 2012.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to wireless
telecommunications. Appellants disclose a method for decoding at least one
signal transmitted and received by antennas including a symbol decoding
step for producing estimated symbols representative of at least one
transmitted symbol carried by the received signal, and likelihood values
associated to the estimated symbols. The estimated symbols are identified
among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of symbols
which may potentially be received by the receiving antenna and are included
in a sphere having a predetermined radius. Spec. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation in
italics):
1. A method for decoding at least one signal, comprising:
receiving the at least one signal, the at least one signal
being transmitted by at least one transmitting antenna and
received by at least one receiving antenna, the at least one
signal carrying at least one received symbol;
defining a sphere having a predetermined radius and
being centered on a particular symbol chosen among
predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of
symbols, said particular symbol not representing the at least
one received symbol; and

1 Claims 2-4 were objected to as dependent from a rejected claim, but
include allowable subject matter. Final Office Action (“FOA”) 8.

Appeal 2010-010168
Application 10/848,076

3
producing estimated symbols representative of at least
one transmitted symbol transmitted by the at least one
transmitting antenna and identified among the predetermined
symbols included in the sphere and likelihood values associated
to said estimated symbols.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hochwald (U.S. 2003/0076890 A1).
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hochwald and On the Expected Complexity of Sphere
Decoding, Conference Record of the 35th Asilomar Conference on Signals,
Systems & Computers, New York, NY: IEEE, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 4-7,
2001, Asilomar US, vol. 1 of 2, Conf. 35, 4 November 2001, pages 1051-
1055 (“Hassibi”).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Hochwald teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation of independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action (“FOA”) and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Answer.
We agree with Appellants’ conclusions. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner finds that “Hochwald discloses the sphere decoding
centered on ŝ[,] wherein ŝ is the center of the search sphere chosen from a
candidate list of search values of s.” FOA 3; Ans. 9. The Examiner further

Appeal 2010-010168
Application 10/848,076

4
finds that Hochwald does not specifically disclose the particular symbol
chosen among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of
symbols, but asserts that the center of the sphere is any point in the same
space among the constellation of symbols. FOA 3, 5; Ans. 5, 9. The
Examiner explains that in Hochwald the center of the decoding sphere is
chosen from the lattice constellation. FOA 3; Ans. 9-10. The Examiner
concludes that at the time the invention was made, one with ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to select the predetermined symbols
forming a lattice constellation of symbols to further improve the search
efficiency and speed. FOA 3, Ans. 10; see also FOA 5, Ans. 5 (the discovery
of optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill).
We agree with Appellants’ argument that Hochwald does not teach or
suggest that the sphere center ŝ is a symbol of the lattice constellation
depicted in Hochwald’s Figures 4 and 5. App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2. We
further agree that Hochwald does not teach or suggest that the sphere center
ŝ is a symbol chosen among predetermined symbols forming a lattice
constellation. App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2. As pointed out by Appellants, the
Examiner confuses the variables ŝ and s; Hochwald describes ŝ as the center
of the search sphere and describes s as the candidate solution. App. Br. 9-10
(citing ¶¶ 0072, 0098-103, Figs. 4-5).
For at least these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 and 7-13 as obvious over Hochwald. As applied by the
Examiner, Hassibi does not remedy the deficiencies of Hochwald. Ans. 6-8.
For the same reasons as claims 1 and 7-13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Hochwald and Hassibi.

Appeal 2010-010168
Application 10/848,076

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 7-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald and Hassibi.
REVERSED

msc