Ex Parte FANG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

14734745 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/734,745 06/09/2015 Liming FANG HW721001 5592
77399 7590 05/17/2017
T evHia Vnit Rr Mave.r T tH
EXAMINER
(for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd)
Two Prudential Plaza Suite 4900
DEPPE, BETSY LEE
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2017 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):
Chgpatent @ ley dig. com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIMING FANG
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of Claims 1—10 and 14—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 11—13 have been canceled. Claims App’x.
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed December 6, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 14, 2016 (“Ans”); the Final Office
Action mailed February 8, 2016 (“Final Act.”); and the original
Specification filed December 30, 2015 (“Spec.”).
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to methods, a device, a system and a non-transitory
computer readable medium for remote crosstalk cancellation. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 16, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellant’s invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized and some formatting added:
1. A method for reducing far-end crosstalk in a digital line system,
wherein the system comprises a first line and second lines, the method
comprises:
receiving a noise related value fed back from a first receiving
end to a first transmitting end over the first line;
pre-coding, a first signal and crosstalk source signals according
to values of filtering parameters to form a synthesized signal
corresponding to the first line; wherein the crosstalk source signals are
related to second signals over the second lines, and the values of the
filtering parameters are acquired according to the noise related value',
wherein the first signal is to be transmitted over the first line from the
first transmitting end to the first receiving end, and the second signals
are to be transmitted from a second transmitting end to a second
receiving end over each of the second lines; and
transmitting the synthesized signal from the first transmitting
end to the first receiving end over the first line.
Fang
References
The Examiner relies upon the art as follows:
US 8,254,471 B2 Aug. 28, 2012
(“the ‘471 patent”)
Fang US 8,295,369 B2 Oct. 23, 2012
(“the ‘369 patent”)
Fang US 8,792,568 B2 July 29, 2014
(“the ‘568 patent”)
2
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
Examiner s Rejections
1. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite. Final Act. 2—3.
2. Claims 8, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over Claims 15—17 and 20 of the ‘471
patent. Final Act. 4—5.
3. Claims 8, 10, 14, and 15 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over Claims 14—16 and 20 of the ‘369
patent. Final Act. 5—7.
4. Claims 1—10 and 14—17 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting over Claims 1—8 and 12—14 of the ‘568
patent. Final Act. 7—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—10 and 14—17 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 10-11,
and in the Reply Brief, pages 2—3.
Claim 17: Indefiniteness.
With respect to independent Claim 17, Appellant argues Appellant’s
Specification makes clear that “the first signal” and “the crosstalk signals,”
recited in the “synthesizing” step refer to the pre-coded “first signal” and
pre-coded “crosstalk source signals.” App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. 23, 40,
101, and 106, Fig. 2); Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds that the claim is
unclear as to “whether ‘the first signal’ and ‘the crosstalk source signal’ are
3
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
referring to the respective signals prior to pre-coding or to the respective
signals after pre-coding.” Ans. 2. We disagree with the Examiner because
the pre-coded “first signal” and pre-coded “crosstalk source signals” provide
antecedent basis for the “the first signal” and “the crosstalk signals,”
subsequently recited in the “synthesizing” step.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph.
Claim 8: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Over the ‘471 Patent
Claim 8 recites “the ‘signal transmitting module is configured to
transmit the synthesized signal to the first receiving end over the first line.’”
Appellant argues Claim 15 of the ‘471 patent lacks the limitation “over the
first line.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds the preamble of Claim 15 of the ‘471 patent
recites “the first transmitting end connected to a first receiving end over a
first line.” Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, it is obvious that the signal
transmitting module recited in Claim 15 of the ‘471 patent transmits to the
first receiving end over the first line. Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner that “over a first line,” recited in the
preamble of Claim 15 of the ‘471 patent limits the structure of “the first
receiving end” recited in the body of the claim because it limits “a first
receiving end,” recited in the preamble from which “the first receiving end”
derives antecedent basis. See Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. Dynamic
Details, Inc., 307 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (concluding that a claim
term recited throughout a claim that derives antecedent basis from its
recitation in the preamble is limited by the language limiting the claim term
4
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
in the preamble). We further note the body of Claim 15 of the ‘471 patent
recites “the signal synthesis module is configured to synthesize a first signal
to be transmitted over the first line.” Because Appellant does not address
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we are not persuaded of error.
Claim 15: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Over the ‘471 Patent and
the ‘369 Patent
Claim 15 recites “wherein the values of the filtering parameters are
acquired according to a noise related value.” Appellant contends Claim 20
of the ‘471 patent lacks this limitation. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. Appellant
presents similar arguments with respect to Claim 20 of the ‘369 patent. App.
Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Claim 20 of ‘471 patent recites
“the values of the filtering parameters are adjusted according to the noise
statistic related value.” Ans. 3. The Examiner makes similar findings with
respect to Claim 20 of the ‘369 patent.
The Examiner finds adjusting a value of the filtering parameters as
recited in Claim 20 of the ‘471 patent and Claim 20 of the ‘369 patent
implicitly or inherently acquires a value of the filtering parameters as recited
in Claim 15. Ans. 4, 7. We note Appellant’s Specification states “values of
adaptive filtering parameters are adjusted according to a noise statistic
related value that is fed back from a receiving end.” Spec. 140. Appellant’s
Specification describes adjusting the values of the adaptive filtering
parameters based on a value, a noise statistic related value, which is acquired
from the receiving end. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that adjusting the
value of the filtering parameter necessarily requires acquiring the value of
5
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
the filtering parameter because the adjusted value depends on the noise
statistic related value that is acquired from the receiving end. Ans. 4, 7.
The Examiner additionally finds that the “noise related value” recited
in Claim 15 is broader than the “noise statistic related value” recited in
Claim 20 of the ‘471 patent and Claim 20 of the ‘369 patent. Ans. 4, 7. We
note Claim 15 recites “wherein the noise statistic related value reflects a
noise component of [the synthesized first] signal received by the first
receiving end.” We further note Appellant’s Specification states “the noise
statistic related value reflects a noise component of the synthesized first
signal received by the first receiving end.” Spec. 121. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that the “noise statistic related value” recited in Claim 20 of
the ‘471 patent and in Claim 20 of the ‘369 patent describes the “noise
related value” recited in Claim 15. Ans. 4, 7. Because Appellant does not
address the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we are not persuaded of
error.
Claim 8: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Over the ‘369 Patent
Appellant argues Claim 14 of the ‘369 patent does not contain the
“first receiving end,” “first transmitting end,” “second transmitting end,” and
“second receiving end,” limitations of Claim 8. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
However, the Examiner finds Claim 14 of the ‘369 patent recites “first signal
receiving end,” “first signal transmitting end,” “second transmitting end,”
and “second receiving end.” Ans. 5—6. We additionally note that the body
of Claim 14 of the ‘369 patent recites “first receiving end.” We agree with
the Examiner that these recitations do not render Claim 8 distinct from
6
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
Claim 14 of the ‘369 patent. Ans. 6. Because Appellant does not address
the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we are not persuaded of error.
Claim 1: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Over the ‘568 Patent
Appellant asserts Claim 1 of the ‘568 patent does not contain “first
receiving end,” “first transmitting end,” “second transmitting end,” “second
receiving end,” “digital link system,” and “noise related value” limitations of
Claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Claim 1 of the ‘568
patent recites “first xDSL receiving end,” “first xDSL transmitting end,”
“second xDSL transmitting end,” “second xDSL receiving end,” “xDSL
(Digital Subscriber Lines) system,” and “noise statistic related value.” Ans.
8. We agree with the Examiner that the corresponding limitations in Claim
1 of the ‘568 patent do not render Claim 1 of the ‘568 patent patentably
distinct from Claim 1. Ans. 8—9. Because Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we are not persuaded of error.
Claims 8 and 15-17: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Over the ‘568
Patent
Appellant contends Claims 8 and 15—17 are patentable in view of their
arguments discussed above with respect to Claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
3. In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claim 17 as indefinite under 35U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is REVERSED.
7
Appeal 2017-002788
Application 14/734,745
The rejection of Claims 1—10 and 14—17 under the grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting 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)(l)(iv).
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
8