Ex Parte Fabian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12747667 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

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