Ex Parte Fabian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201612747667 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121747,667 08/17/2010 88087 7590 02/29/2016 Fritzsche Patent c/o Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (SEN) P. 0. Box 1404 Alexandria, VA 22313-1404 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas Fabian 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2007P27387WOUS 7894 EXAMINER LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS FABIAN, and WOLFGANG BAUER Appeal2014-001478 Application 12/747,667 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. A. THE INVENTION According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to synchronizing a packet-oriented received tone signal with a generated tone signal (Spec. 1.) B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal2014-001478 Application 12/747,667 1. A method for synchronizing a tone signal transmitted in data packets comprising: a) inserting a tone signal into transmitted data packets wherein the tone signal is transmitted by tone-signal specific information in the data packets; b) generating a tone signal according to the transmitted tone information using a tone generator; c) ascertaining a phase difference between the transmitted tone signal and the generated tone signal before insertion of the generated tone signal into the data packets begins and comparing the ascertained phase difference to a predefined phase difference; d) upon a determination that the ascertained phase difference exceeds the predefined phase difference changing the phase of the generated tone signal by the tone generator to a predefined phase; and e) repeating steps c) and d) until the ascertained phase difference lies under the predefined phase difference then inserting the generated tone signal into the data packets in place of the transmitted tone signal. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Oran Caplan US 7,233,605 Bl US 2006/0125535 Al June 19, 2007 June 15, 2006 Claims 1-3, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran and Caplan. 2 Appeal2014-001478 Application 12/747,667 Claims 4, 5, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oran, Caplan, and the Background Section of Applicants' Specification. 1 II. ISSUES The issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Oran and Caplan teaches or would have suggested 1) "ascertaining a phase difference between the transmitted tone signal and the generated tone signal before insertion of the generated tone signal into the data packets begins," 2) upon a determination that the ascertained phase difference exceeds the predefined phase difference changing the phase of the generated tone signal ... , "and 3) "repeating . .. until the ascertained phase difference lies under the predefined phase difference then inserting the generated tone signal into the data packets ... " (claim 1, emphasis added). ANALYSIS Appellants contend that in Caplan, "[t]here is no comparing of an ascertained phase difference to a predefined phase difference that occurs prior to insertion of any generated tone signal into data packets" (App. Br. 12). Appellants further contend Caplan "fails to teach or suggest that a phase of a generated tone signal is changed to a predefined phase if the ascertained phase difference exceeds the predefined phase difference" (App. Br. 10, emphasis added). In particular, Appellants contend Caplan's changing of in pulse width "is not based on any assessment of any tone signal nor any phase difference of a transmitted tone signal and a generated 1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (Ans. 10). 3 Appeal2014-001478 Application 12/747,667 tone signal" (App. Br. 14). Appellants then contend Caplan "also fails to teach or suggest any repeating of steps c and d . . . until the ascertained phase difference is under the predefined phase difference" (App. Br. 10, emphasis added). After reviewing the record on appeal, we find the preponderance of evidence supports the Appellants' position. Even though we agree with the Examiner that "the PLL of Caplan is not limited to charge pumps" (Ans. 11 ), wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art "would understand that ... Caplan specifically teaches that a Phase Locked Loop (PLL) is used in the recovery of clock timing information from a data stream in Dual-Tone Mutli-Frequency (DTMF) decoders" (Ans. 12), we are not persuaded that the cited portions of Caplan and Oran contain a teaching or suggestion of "ascertaining a phase difference between the transmitted tone signal and the generated tone signal before insertion of the generated tone signal into the data packets begins" (claim 1 ). Further, although the Examiner finds "[t]he phase comparison ... occurs prior to the determination of the results of that phase comparison" and "[ s ]ubsequent to that determination, the results of the phase comparison are used to modify the phase ... " (Ans. 16), we are unpersuaded that the cited portions of the references teach or suggest the contested claimed "upon a determination that the ascertained phase difference exceeds the predefined phase difference changing the phase of the generated tone signal ... , " and "repeating ... until the ascertained phase difference lies under the predefined phase difference then inserting the generated tone signal into the data packets . . . " as required in independent claim 1. 4 Appeal2014-001478 Application 12/747,667 Therefore, on this record, we cannot atlirm the Examiner's § l 03 rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2, 3 and 6 depending therefrom and standing therewith, over Oran and Caplan. Independent claim 7 similarly recites the contested limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we also reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection of independent claim 7, and claim 8 depending therefrom and standing therewith, over Oran and Caplan. The Examiner makes no finding as to whether the Background Section of Applicants' Specification makes up for the above-discussed deficiencies of Oran and Caplan. Thus, we also reverse the rejections of: claims 4, 5, and 9 over Oran and Caplan, in further view of the Background Section of Applicants' Specification. IV. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation