Ex Parte Chang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201311565438 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LI FUNG CHANG, HENDRIK JOHANNES CONROY, and SEVERINE CATREUS-ERCEG ____________________ Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for optimizing multipath detection in a Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA)/ High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA) communication system that includes selecting a detected signal path for processing based on the energy values of the detected signal paths, a pre- defined threshold, and a dynamic threshold, in order to achieve a desired probability of misdetection and a desired probability of false alarm (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for processing signals in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: performing by one or more processors and/or circuits integrated within a single chip: calculating at a receiver, a plurality of energy values corresponding to a plurality of signal paths detected within a communication channel; and selecting at least one of said plurality of detected signal paths for processing based on said plurality of energy values, a pre-defined threshold and a dynamic threshold, in order to achieve a desired probability of misdetection and a desired probability of false alarm, wherein said probability of Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 3 misdetection is a probability that a real signal path is missed and said probability of false alarm is a probability of detecting a false signal path. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kotlowski US 6,785,758 B1 Aug. 31, 2004 Oh US 2004/0196893 A1 Oct. 7, 2004 Akahori US 2007/0064786 A1 Mar.22, 2007 Claims 1-101 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kotlowski. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Kotlowski and Akahori. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that: 1 Since independent claim 11 does not recite “one or more processors and/or circuits integrated within a single chip,” we consider the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, a typographical error (App. Br. 26). Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 4 1. the Specification provides support for “performing by one or more processors and/or circuits integrated within a single chip” (claim 1, emphasis added); and 2. the combination of Oh and Kotlowski teaches or would have suggested “selecting at least one of said plurality of detected signal paths for processing based on said plurality of energy values, a pre-defined threshold and a dynamic threshold” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Oh 1. Oh discloses a telecommunication receiver and method including a Threshold Comparison stage for pre-detection and searching of the true code phase in a Primary Synchronization Channel (P-SCH) channel, a Window search stage for selecting a predetermined number of signals containing the largest moving average window powers, and a Fat Finger Location stage for performing a post-detection process that finds the window containing the maximum power (¶¶ [0076] and [0079]). 2. During the Threshold Comparison stage of the receiver, the receiver determines an appropriate threshold η1which is proportional to the Hierarchical Golay Correlator (HGC) average noise power (σnHGC) within the P-SCH having a proper scaling factor of α in order to maintain a low probability of false alarm (¶ [0080]). 3. During the post-detection stage (Fate Finger Location stage), a signal corresponding to the desired base station is verified in order to Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 5 suppress other signals corresponding to path energies from all detectable base stations which do not belong to the desired base station (¶ [0080]). The signal is selected using a second threshold η2 which is proportional to the Pseudo Noise (PN) average noise power (σnPN) within the Common Pilot Channel (CPICH) having a proper scaling factor of β, where if the correlation power Pk PN is greater than the second threshold η2, then the code phase is accepted as a true path (¶¶ [0077] and [0098]). Kotlowski 4. Kotlowski discloses System-On-a-Chip (SOC) devices that integrate into a single chip all (or nearly all) of the components of a complex electronic system, such as a wireless receiver (such as, a cell phone or a television receiver); wherein, the size, cost, and power consumption of the system is greatly reduced (col. 1, ll. 39-50). Akahoki 5. Akahoki discloses a threshold value comparing circuit 203 that sets a relative threshold value (400) from a maximum electric power and extracts the paths (300 through 302) which have electric powers which are greater than or equal to the threshold value (400) (¶ [0040]). IV. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. §112, First Paragraph Claims 1-10 Appellants contend that “the [S]pecification conveys with reasonable clarity that the inventors had possession of performing the claimed method ‘by one or more processors and/or circuits integrated within a single chip’ at the time the original application was filed” since “[s]upport for this Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 6 limitation can be found . . . in paragraphs 0044-0046 and Figure 6,” where “the processor 642 may perform the recited functionalities and may be implemented as a single chip” (App. Br. 9). However, the Examiner finds that the “disputed limitation requires that the one or more processors and/or circuits being disposed within a single chip” or “a ‘system-on-a-chip’ hardware arrangement which is not disclosed by the original specification” (Ans. 8). The Examiner notes that he “has carefully considered the referred sections and Figure (s), but found no sufficient support for the limitation in dispute” (id.). In particular, “Figure 6 merely depicts what can be construed as a functional block representation of the UE device, and it does not, by itself, imply that the processors and other circuits are disposed on a single chip” (id.). In order to comply with the written description requirement, it must be demonstrated that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Specification as originally filed describes user equipment which may comprise a processor, a memory, and a radio; wherein, the processor is integrated within the user equipment to enable calculation of the energy values of the detected signal paths and selection of one of the detected signal paths based upon a pre-defined threshold and a dynamic threshold (Spec. ¶¶ [0044]-[0046]). There is no description as to “one or more processors and/or circuits integrated within a single chip” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). As such, a person with ordinary skill in the art would not have understood that the Appellants were in possession of the claimed invention. Rather, we find this limitation to be new matter because it is not described by the Specification as originally filed. Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 7 Accordingly, we conclude that independent claim 1 does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art that Appellants were in possession of the claimed invention. Because we conclude that there are ambiguities with respect to claim 1 and thus claims 2-10 depending therefrom, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 35 U.S.C. §103 Claims 1-5, 7, 11-15, and 17 Appellants contend that the “cited portion of Oh relates to pre- detection and search of true code phase for the P-SCH channel, and it does not relate to selecting at least one of a plurality of detected signal paths for processing” (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted) and “the output of the Threshold Comparison block . . . is determined only on the basis of η1” (App. Br. 13). Appellants argue that “the second threshold η2 is not used together with threshold η1 for purposes of selecting at least one of a plurality of detected signal paths for processing” (id. citation omitted). Appellants finally contend that “since Oh’s first and second thresholds η1 and η2 are both determined in the same manner (i.e., ‘proportional to the average noise power’)[,] they both must either be ‘pre-defined’ or ‘dynamic;’” “[i]t simply is not credible to treat one as a ‘pre-defined threshold value’ and the other as a ‘dynamic threshold value’” (App. Br. 14). However, the Examiner finds that “Oh’s selection process may be conducted in several stages (as shown in Oh Figure 1 and Figure 3), but the path that is selected ultimately goes through all the stages of selection sequentially, therefore, η1 and η2 are both used in the selection process” (Ans. 9). The Examiner notes that Appellants have “committed the error of equating a pre-defined threshold to a fixed-value threshold” and “η1 (or η2) Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 8 can be both pre-defined (as shown by the formula in Oh” “and dynamic (as [both] var[y] according to average noise power)” (id.). In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that “one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the ‘pre-defined’ threshold is a fixed, whereas the ‘dynamic’ threshold is a threshold with a value that can change” (Reply Br. 3). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 and the Specification do not define “pre-defined” and “dynamic.” Thus, we give “a pre-defined threshold” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any value defined prior to the method for processing signals, and give “a dynamic threshold” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any value characterized by constant change, as consistent with the Specification and claim 1. Oh discloses a telecommunication receiver and method including a Threshold Comparison stage (pre-detection stage), a Window search stage, and a Fat Finger Location stage (post-detection stage) (FF 1). At the Threshold Comparison stage, a threshold η1 (which is proportional to the HGC average noise power (σHGC) within the P-SCH having a proper scaling factor of α) is used to filter the signals (FF 2). At the Fat Finger Location stage, a threshold η2 (which is proportional to the PN average noise power (σPN) within the CPICH having a proper scaling factor of β) is used to select the true path (FF 3). We first find that the threshold η1, which is defined using a formula, comprises a value defined prior to the method for processing signals. We find further that the threshold η1 comprises a value characterized by constant Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 9 change (average noise power). Additionally, we find that the signals filtered using the threshold η1 during the Threshold Comparison stage comprise energy values selected using this value defined prior to the method for processing signals. Hence, we find that the Threshold Comparison stage having a threshold η1 comprises selecting a detected signal path for processing based on the energy values and a pre-defined threshold (η1). Similarly, we find that the threshold η2 comprises a value defined prior to the method for processing signals and a value characterized by constant change (average noise power). We note that since the signal that is selected by threshold η2 in the Fat Finger Location stage must first be filtered by threshold η1 in the Threshold Comparison stage, the signal is ultimately selected based upon both thresholds: η1 and η2 (FF 1-3). That is, we find that the method of Oh’s receiver comprises “selecting at least one of said plurality of detected signal paths for processing based on said plurality of energy values, a pre-defined threshold and a dynamic threshold” (claim 1). In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination of Oh and Kotlowski at least suggests providing all the claimed features of claim 1. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Oh in view of Kotlowski. Further, independent claim 11 reciting similar claim language and claims 2-5, 7, 12- 15, and 17 (depending from claims 1 and 11) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 10 Claims 6 and 16 Appellants contend that “the threshold η1 is used to identify a plurality (i.e., all) of candidate windows (Pkwindow);” therefore, “[i]t is not used to select one of the candidate windows from the plurality of identified candidate windows” (App. Br. 18). However, the Examiner notes that the “[c]laimed language[] does not require ONLY one signal path being selected” (Ans. 10). As noted supra, Oh discloses a receiver having a Threshold Comparison stage that uses a threshold η1 (which is proportional to the HGC average noise power (σHGC) within the P-SCH having a proper scaling factor of α) to select signals (FF 2 and 3). We find that the first threshold (η1) comprises a value which is defined using a formula prior to the method of processing the signals. We find further that the filtering of signals using the first threshold η1 comprises selecting a first one of the detected signal paths using only a value that is defined using a formula prior to the method of processing the signals. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Oh in view of Kotlowski. Further, claim 16 (depending from claim 11) which has not been argued separately, falls with claim 6. Claims 10 and 20 Appellants contend that “there simply is no disclosure or suggestion in Oh that ‘said dynamic threshold [(allegedly Oh’s second threshold η2)] is equal to a scaled value of said pre-defined threshold [(allegedly Oh’s first threshold η1)]’” (App. Br. 19). Appellants argue that the average noise “σnPN is not even ‘a pre-defined threshold’” (App. Br. 20). Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 11 However, the Examiner finds that since “both η1 (i.e. the pre-defined threshold) and η2 (i.e. the dynamic threshold) [are] proportional to ‘average noise power,’” “η1 and η2 are scaled version of one another” (Ans. 10). As noted supra, Oh discloses a receiver having a Threshold Comparison stage that uses a threshold η1 (which is proportional to the HGC average noise power within the P-SCH having a proper scaling factor of α) is used to filter the signals (FF 2). At the Fate Finger Location stage, a threshold η2 (which is proportional to the PN average noise power within the CPICH having a proper scaling factor of β) is used to select the true path (FF 3). We find that Oh’s method comprises selecting a dynamic threshold equal to a scaled value of the average noise power (either HGC or PN), where a pre-defined threshold is also a scaled value of the average noise power (either HGC or PN). Thus, we find that the combination of Oh and Kotlowski at least suggests providing “comprising selecting said dynamic threshold so that said dynamic threshold to equal to a scaled value of said pre-defined threshold” (claim 10). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Oh in view of Kotlowski. Further, claim 20 (depending from claim 11) which has not been argued separately, falls with claim 10. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 Appellants argue that since the “Examiner provides no basis for his conclusory allegation [that] ‘setting the dynamic threshold in accordance with the strongest signal path detected in order to effectively detect[] signal Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 12 paths,’” “the Examiner appears to be proposing the combination based solely on improper hindsight” (App. Br. 22). As noted supra, Oh discloses a telecommunication receiver and method including a Threshold Comparison stage that uses a threshold η1 (which is proportional to the HGC average noise power within the P-SCH having a proper scaling factor of α) to filter the signals (FF 1 and 2). We find that threshold (η1) comprises a value that is defined using a formula prior to the method of processing the signals and that threshold (η1) comprises a value characterized by constant change (noise). In addition, Akahoki discloses a threshold value comparing circuit that sets a relative threshold value from a maximum electric power and extracts the paths which have electric powers which are greater than or equal to the threshold value (FF 5). We find that the method of the threshold value comparing circuit comprises selecting a threshold that is equal to a maximum value of a scaled energy value of a strongest signal path. Thus, we find that the combination of Oh, Kotlowski, and Akahoki at least suggests all the features of claim 8. We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining the references would be obvious since one would “modify Oh by setting the dynamic threshold in accordance with the strongest signal path detected in order to effectively detected signal paths” (Ans. 7). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Oh’s method of selecting signal based upon a dynamic threshold (η1 or Appeal 2011-005089 Application 11/565,438 13 η2) with the threshold set from a maximum electric power, as disclosed in Akahoki, produces the step of selecting a dynamic threshold that is equal to a maximum value of either a pre-defined threshold and a scaled energy value of a strongest path which would be obvious (Ans.10-11; FF1-3 and 5). We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, 9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Oh in view of Kotlowski and Akahori. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation