Ex Parte Chung et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 13, 2006

09765754 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 13, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAE-YOUNG CHUNG and HUI-LING LOU
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application No. 09/765,754
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before THOMAS, BLANKENSHIP, and HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1 through 15, 17 and 19 through 25, appellants having canceled claim 16 and
the examiner having allowed independent claim 18.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for multilevel coding of a stream of information bits in a
communication system, the method comprising the steps of:

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

2
separating the stream of information bits into a plurality of different portions;

associating each of the portions of the information bits with one of a plurality
of levels;

applying at least one code to the portion of the information bits of each level in
a designated subset of the plurality of levels such that the portions of the information
bits for one or more levels in the designated subset are coded while the portions of the
information bits for one or more levels not in the designated subset are uncoded; and

utilizing both the coded portions of the information bits and the uncoded
portions of the information bits to select modulation symbols for transmission in the
system;

wherein the stream of information bits comprises at least one frame of
information bits separated into a plurality of different classes of bits, each class of bits
comprising a plurality of contiguous bits of the frame, and wherein each of the
portions of the stream of information bits comprises a corresponding one of the
different classes of bits within the at least one frame, and wherein the at least one code
is selected so as to provide different amounts of error protection for at least a subset of
the different classes of bits.

The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Fazel et al. (Fazel) 5,323,424 Jun. 21, 1994
Chouly et al. (Chouly) 5,416,801 May 16, 1995
Cloonan 5,566,193 Oct. 15, 1996
Klayman et al. (Klayman) 5,841,378 Nov. 24, 1998
Herzberg 5,970,098 Oct. 19, 1999
Claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 17, 19, 23 and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Fazel. All remaining claims on appeal stand
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness as to claim 9 through 13
and 20 through 22, the examiner relies upon Fazel only, to which the examiner has
added Herzberg and Clayman as to claims 5 and 15, separately added Cloonan as to
claim 14, and separately added Chouly as to claim 24.
Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

3
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference is
made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Generally, for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the examiner’s rather
detailed consideration of the teachings of Fazel as applied to the claims on appeal, as
amplified and emphasized here, we sustain the rejections of all claims on appeal. The
first stated rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 includes independent claims 1, 17, 23 and
25. Only the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 17 in this rejection are argued
in the brief. Moreover, the appellants rely upon the arguments as to representative
independent claim 1 on appeal to urge patentability for each of the separately recited
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relying on Fazel only or additional prior art.
Appellants’ remarks as to the separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent
claim 24 at page 9 of the principal brief on appeal does not argue against the
combinability within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Chouly and does not contest or challenge
what the examiner says this reference teaches. Essentially, the same may be said of
the additional prior art relied on by the examiner in the other rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

4
Of the subject matter of representative independent claim 1 on appeal, the
focus of appellants’ arguments is the feature recited therein of “each class of bits
comprising a plurality of contiguous bits of the frame.” It was the amendment filed by
appellants on June 28, 2004 in this application that led to the introduction of the entire
wherein clause of representative independent 1 on appeal of which the quoted material
is a part. The justification for this additional material added to claim 1 was said at
page 10 of the remarks of the amendment to be based upon the illustrated
embodiments in figures 5 and 6 as well as their corresponding discussion at
specification page 9, line 24 through page 11, line 4. However, there is no discussion
or showing among these respective portions of the specification as filed which justifies
the inclusion of the term “contiguous” as a basis to characterize the presently claimed
invention on appeal. While it may be fairly characterized that these portions of the
specification as filed generally indicate that a class of bits comprise a plurality of bits,
they are not necessarily recited in the noted portion to be contiguous to each other
within a given class or between classes.
With this understanding, we are in full agreement with the examiner’s analysis
in the answer. The claims do not recite and the specification does not indicate that the
claimed “stream of information” is a serial bit stream of information, nor do the claims
recite and the specification justify that any particular related bits within a class are
serially presented. Appellants’ apparent definition of the word “contiguous”

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

5
appears to indicate that they are merely adjacent bits at the top of page 5 of the
principal brief on appeal. Therefore, it appears plain to us that any serial teachings of
data bits within a characterized class of bits as well as any parallel characterization of
plurality of bits forming the claimed class of bits in Fazel would meet the limitation.
The data stream 34 in figure 3 of Fazel appears to correspond to the claimed
data stream from our prospective as well as the examiner’s approach. Each of the
respective levels D in figure 3 of Fazel at the output of the serial/parallel converter 30
would appear to us to be in the form of parallel data, which clearly falls within the
ambit of the contiguous or otherwise adjacent bits as argued and claimed
notwithstanding the questionable bases in which this feature is recited as derived from
the specification as filed. Contiguous is not a term used in the specification as filed in
any manner to describe the bit stream or the nature of the bit arrangement of the
classes of bits.
The examiner’s responsive arguments beginning at page 14 of the answer
appear to be consistent with our study of this reference, that is, that a parallel bit
stream for each separate data rate or level D is parallel data. The use of separate
encoders 31 in figure 3 of this reference clearly indicates that there are separate classes
or levels of coding to be undertaken before the modulator 32 performs its function to
the extent Fazel teaches multilevel coding of an information data stream. We
therefore agree with the examiner’s observation that appellants’ characterization in the

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

6
principal brief on appeal is incorrect that the output of this serial/parallel converter 30
provides one bit for each labeled D level among the plurality shown there. Moreover,
the characterization of the encoders as being operative with respect to n representing
the number of bits transmitted per block and k representing the number of information
bits transmitted per block clearly suggest the plurality of parallel bits operated within
each encoder 31 from the output levels D of converter 30. This is also buttressed by
the characterization also at the bottom of column 6 of Fazel of the reference operating
upon block coded information. Moreover, the discussion at the top of column 7 also
indicates that plural bits appear to be assigned for each level for encoding purposes.
Therefore, each block of information may correspond in the reference to the claimed
classes.
We do not agree with appellants’ views expressed at page 1 and 2 of the reply
brief that Fazel does not discuss the word frames of information in any context.
Although it is true that Fazel does not specifically mention frames per se, there are
significant teachings of the types of data that are contemplated by this reference
including digital television and radio information at column 1; a corresponding
discussion at column 4, lines 22 through 25; the discussion beginning at column 5, line
26 and the additional teachings beginning at column 12, line 30 as the examiner has
argued in the answer with respect to various rejections. Digital TV utilizes a frame-
based information transfer approach.

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

7
As to the remarks at page 2 of the reply brief, it is independent claim 1 that
requires that the respective bits within any given class be contiguous, whereas the
respective classes do not have to contiguous with each other in the context of claim 1.
Additionally, there is no requirement that the frames themselves be contiguous with
respect to each other, such as in independent claim 17 on appeal. Appellants’
observation at page 2 of the reply brief that there is no requirement in Fazel that each
of the particular blocks of bits necessarily comprises contiguous bits of a frame is
therefore misplaced.
Lastly, as to the separate arguments in the brief with respect to dependent
claims 21 and 22 at pages 8 and 9 of the principal brief on appeal to the extent they are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fazel only, we agree with the examiner’s analysis
in the statement of the rejection at page 11 of the answer as well as the responsive
arguments at pages 17 through 19 of the answer. Appellants’ own specification
contemplates at specification page 4, lines 5 through 8 and the discussion of any type
digital information coding at specification page 13, line 18 through page 14, line 2 that
appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a variety of applications of use. The
examiner has made similar arguments in the noted portions of the answer even through
the examiner has utilized to some extent the highly disfavored term “design choice” or
“design option” as characterizing his position. But what is noteworthy of the
examiner’s analysis, however, is that the examiner has explained

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

8
the context of meaning of the use of these concepts. Essentially, they relate to the
same teachings appellants’ specification has prospectively made as just noted, as well
as the earlier-noted teachings in Fazel of various types of modulation schemes and
uses we have pointed out earlier in this opinion. With respect to a particular choice of
level 5 or 4 as recited in claims 21 and 22, respectively, in addition to the respective
ranges noted there, we agree with the examiner’s view that it would have be obvious
to have optimized the choice of levels (result effective variables) in these respective
ranges for a given environment of use to the extent noted in the answer.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s rejections of various claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with

this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JDT:pgc
Appeal No. 2006-0439
Application 09/765,754

10
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560