Ex Parte CairnsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201410943720 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 10/943,720 09/17/2004 Douglas A. Cairns 4015-5209/P19089-US1 4318 24112 7590 04/24/2014 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER PANWALKAR, VINEETA S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2014 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 DOUGLAS A. CAIRNS ____________ Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24, 27, 29, and 30. Claims 25, 26, 28, 31, and 32 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “controlling interference suppression in wireless communication receivers.” Spec. ¶ 0001. Independent claims 1 and 24 illustrate the claimed subject matter: 1. In a wireless communication receiver, a method of processing a received signal comprising: calculating an orthogonality factor for the received signal, the orthogonality factor indicating the effect of intra-cell interference on the received signal; and selectively whitening the received signal based on the orthogonality factor. 24. In a wireless communication receiver, a method of processing a received signal comprising: determining whether the receiver is in a soft handover condition; and selectively whitening the received signal based on said determination. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17, 18, 20-23, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Olufunmilola Awoniyi et al., Characterizing the Orthogonality Factor in WCDMA Downlinks, 2 IEEE Transaction on Wireless Communications 621 (2003) in view of Mattellini (US 6,944,434 B2; September 13, 2005). Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 3 Claims 3, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Mattellini and further in view of Dahlman (US 2003/0031236 A1; February 13, 2003). Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Mattellini and further in view of Fitton (US 2004/0028013 Al; February 12, 2004). Claims 24 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bottomley (WO 01/01594 Al; January 4, 2001) in view of Mattellini. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bottomley in view of Mattellini and further in view of Dahlman. ISSUES Appellant raises a number of issues, but we consider only the following two issues, as they are dispositive of the appeal: (1) Did the Examiner err by concluding the combination of Awoniyi and Mattellini renders obvious claims 1, 8, 17, and 29? (2) Did the Examiner err by concluding the combination of Bottomley and Mattellini renders obvious claims 24 and 30? Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 4 ANAYLSIS Claims 1, 8, 17, and 29 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 8, 17, and 29 over the combination of Awoniyi and Mattellini. The Examiner found Awoniyi disclosed an orthogonality factor that indicated the effect of intra-cell interference on a signal, while Mattellini disclosed a receiver that selectively whitened a received signal. (Ans. at 4-5.) The Examiner concluded combining these teachings would result in the invention recited in claims 1, 8, 17, and 29, and one of skill in the art would be have been motivated to make this combination “to suppress the interference.” (Id.) Appellant argues Awoniyi and Mattellini disclose incompatible signal-processing techniques. According to Appellant, Awoniyi describes an orthogonality factor that represents intra-cell interference in Code Division Multiple Access (“CDMA”) systems. (App. Br. at 14.) By contrast, Appellant believes Mattellini discloses a receiver that selectively whitens inter-cell interference in Time Division Multiple Access (“TDMA”) systems. (Id. at 15-16.) Appellant contends Mattellini’s receiver is incapable of processing CDMA signals, and in any event, Awoniyi’s orthogonality factor has no meaning in Mattellini’s TDMA environment. (Id. at 16.) In light of this, Appellant asserts not only that combining the teachings of Awoniyi and Mattellini would not result in the claimed invention but also that the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references—“to suppress interference”—is inadequate. (Id. at 19.) Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 5 We agree with Appellant. The Examiner did not address Appellant’s characterization of the cited art other than to state the “question of CDMA and TDMA incompatibility [did] not arise, since Mattellini was relied upon for providing an efficient solution . . . to a specific problem . . . .” (Ans. at 18.) We fail to see how this response addresses Appellant’s challenges to the Examiner’s rejection. Given the alleged differences between the cited art—differences the Examiner did not address—we agree the Examiner’s obviousness rejection is deficient. Claims 24 and 30 The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 30 over Bottomley in view of Mattellini. The Examiner found Bottomley “show[ed] how interference suppression based on whitening has added complexity in soft handover situations.” (Ans. at 12.) The Examiner also concluded Mattellini disclosed the need for a “less complex method of suppressing co-channel interference based on noise whitening,” in addition to a receiver that selectively whitened a received signal. (Id.) Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to both determine a soft handover condition and selectively whiten a signal based on that determination. (Id.) Appellant contends the cited portion of Bottomley merely states that interference suppression based on whitening is complex and the complexity increases in soft-handover situations. (App. Br. at 28.) Appellant asserts this statement does not teach or suggest “determining whether the receiver is in a soft handover condition,” much less doing anything based on that Appeal 2011-010576 Application 10/943,720 6 determination. (Id.) Moreover, Appellant argues that soft-handover conditions are generally irrelevant to TDMA systems, so the teachings of Bottomley are inapplicable to Mattellini. (Id.) We again agree with Appellant. In response to Appellant’s arguments about the incompatibility of the cited art, the Examiner again simply stated the “question of CDMA and TDMA incompatibility [did] not arise, since Mattellini was relied upon for providing an efficient solution . . . to a specific problem . . . .” (Ans. at 24.) As explained above, this response is insufficient. Moreover, we disagree that Bottomley discloses “determining whether the receiver is in a soft handover condition.” The cited section of Bottomley merely notes complexity can increase in soft handoff situations; the section says nothing about determining whether a receiver is in a soft handover condition. * * * Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation