Ex Parte Buda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

10359218 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/359,218 02/06/2003 Fabien Buda 0023-0160 9474
44987 7590 06/28/2011
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
HAILE, FEBEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FABIEN BUDA and BERTRAND DEBRAY
____________

Appeal 2009-009336
Application 10/359,218
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-12, and 14-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-009336
Application 10/359,218

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a time-division multiplex access
(TDMA) receiver that monitors the spectrum of an incoming time-division
multiplex signal.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A device comprising:

a controller for allocating, to each of a plurality of transmitters,
time intervals during which the transmitter is allowed to
transmit signals,

a receiver for receiving an incoming signal, in a predetermined
frequency band, resulting from multiplexing of signals from
said plurality of transmitters during said time intervals, the
incoming signal being a TDM (time division multiplexed)
signal in the predetermined frequency band,

a processor for extracting and processing said TDM signal, and

spectrum determination means for determining the spectrum of
the incoming signal,

wherein the controller is configured to synchronize the
operation of the spectrum determination means as a function of
the time intervals allocated to the transmitters for the
determination of the spectrum of the incoming signal during
one or more time intervals not allocated to any of the plurality
of transmitters.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-6, 11, 12, 14-17, 23, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Appellants’ Admitted Prior
Art (AAPA), Min (US 2003/0021237 A1), and Naegeli (US 6,895,043 B1).
Appeal 2009-009336
Application 10/359,218

3
The Examiner rejected claims 7-10 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of AAPA, Min, Naegeli, and Azenkot
(US 2002/0154620 A1).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Min for teaching unique time slots allocated
to each subscriber (Ans. 19). The Examiner relies on Naegeli for teaching a
controller synchronizing a determination of spectrum during an interval not
allocated to any transmitter (dummy slots) (Ans. 19). The Examiner finds
AAPA teaches the remaining elements of Appellants’ claimed invention
(Ans. 3-4).
Appellants contend Min discloses allocating time slots to subscribers
for transmitting information across a single frequency channel (Min,
¶¶[0055]-[0056]). Min also “discloses synchronizing a spectral analysis
during a time interval allotted to a transmitter” (App. Br. 9, 11; Reply Br. 3,
4; Min ¶ [0060])). Appellants further contend Naegeli “discloses taking an
FFT of an upstream spectrum at a time when a cable modem being tested
will be transmitting data (column 10, lines 5-7)” (Reply Br. 3-4). Appellants
then assert since:
Min discloses synchronizing a spectral analysis during a time
interval allotted to a transmitter and Naegeli discloses taking an
FFT of an upstream spectrum at a time when a cable modem
being tested will be transmitting data, the combination of Min
and Naegeli cannot disclose or suggest a controller that is
configured to synchronize the operation of the spectrum
determination means as a function of the time intervals
allocated to the transmitters for the determination of the
spectrum of the incoming signal during one or more time
Appeal 2009-009336
Application 10/359,218

4
intervals not allocated to any of the plurality of transmitters, as
recited in claim 1.

(Reply Br. 4)
We agree with Appellants that Min and Naegeli do not disclose or
suggest synchronizing a spectrum determination “during one or more time
intervals not allocated to any of the plurality of transmitters” (emphasis
added) as claimed.
All the independent claims recite this limitation. Thus, claims 1, 12,
and 23, and claims 3-11, 14-22, and 24, which depend therefrom, are not
obvious over the cited references.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3-12, and 14-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-12, and 14-24 is
reversed.
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)(2010).

REVERSED

kis