Ex Parte Garudadri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2018

12512480 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/512,480 07/30/2009
15093 7590 09/19/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Harinath Garudadri
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.
082854 (1059688) 5795
EXAMINER
NGHIEM, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARINATH GARUDADRI and
PAW AN KUMAR BAHETI
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480 1
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-11, 23-35, 61---63, and 67-72. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants describe the invention as relating to compressed sensing
(CS). Spec. ,r 4. In particular, Appellants state that the present disclosure
relates to using CS-based signal processing for low power sensors within the
body area network (BAN) for healthcare and fitness applications. Id. at ,r 5.
For example, the Specification indicates that the signal processing can be
used to process a time-domain photoplethysmograph (PPG) signal (i.e.,
detecting blood volume changes in micro vascular tissue). Id. at ,r 90. Claim
1, reproduced below with emphases added to certain key recitations, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for signal processing, comprising:
generating, using an apparatus, a plurality of sampling
times with non-uniform time intervals between adjacent
sampling times;
representing, using the apparatus, the plurality of
sampling times with nonuniform time intervals between
adjacent sampling times with a measurement matrix;
directing, using the apparatus, bursts of energy at a
biological tissue during the plurality of sampling times with non-
uniform time intervals between adjacent sampling times;
sensing, using the apparatus, samples of a signal, formed
at the biological tissue in response to the bursts of energy, during
the plurality of sampling times with non-uniform time intervals
between adjacent sampling times; and
precoding, using the apparatus, at least some of the
sensed samples using the measurement matrix.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 7,
2016 ("Non-Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed September 12, 2016
("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated June 9, 2017 ("Ans."), and the
Reply Brief filed July 7, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Fujita et al. US 2004/0213407 Al Oct. 28, 2004
("Fujita")
Gunter et al. US 2005/0164160 Al July 28, 2005
("Gunter")
Smith US 2005/0198505 Al Sept. 8, 2005
Vetter et al. US 7,018,338 B2 Mar. 28, 2006
("Vetter")
Ronnekleiv et al. US 2009/0122319 Al May 14, 2009
("Ronnekleiv")
Viswanath et al. US 2010/0008243 Al Jan. 14,2010
("Viswanath")
Bi yani et al. US 2010/0220823 Al Sept. 2, 2010
("Biyani")
Baraniuk et al. US 2011/0025870 Al Feb. 3, 2011
("Baraniuk")
Laska et al., Random Sampling/or Analog-to-Information Conversion of
Wideband Signals, IEEE (2006) ("Laska").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains3 the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1-11, 23-35, 61---63, and 67-72 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Non-Final Act. 3.
3 The Examiner previously rejected claims 12-16 and 64--66 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gunter in view of Smith and applied
additional references to claims 17-22. Id. at 10, 22-28. Those claims have
been cancelled. Appeal Br. 47, 52.
3
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
Rejection 2. Claims 1-5, 23-27, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani. Id. at 4.
Rejection 3. Claims 6 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani and further in view of Ronnekleiv.
Id. at 16.
Rejection 4. Claims 7 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith, Biyani, and Ronnekleiv and further in view of
Baraniuk. Id. at 17.
Rejection 5. Claims 8 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani and further in view of Viswanath.
Id. at 18.
Rejection 6. Claims 9 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani and further in view of Fujita. Id. at
19.
Rejection 7. Claims 10 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith, Biyani, and Fujita and further in view of
Laska. Id. at 20.
Rejection 8. Claims 11 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani and further in view of Vetter. Id.
at 21.
Rejection 9. Claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gunter in view of Smith, Biyani, and Viswanath. Id. at 28.
Rejection 10. Claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Gunter in view of Smith and Biyani and further in view of Baraniuk. Id. at
29.
4
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
The Examiner states that claims 61, 67, 70, or 71 would be allowable
over the cited art, but remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Non-Final
Act. 30.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1, Section 112 written description. The Examiner rejects
claims 1-11, 23-35, 61---63, and 67-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to
comply with the written description requirement. Non-Final Act. 3.
Pursuant to the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the
disclosure of the application relied upon must "reasonably convey[] to those
skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject
matter as of the filing date." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane). The written description inquiry is a
question of fact. Id.
With respect to independent claims 1, 23, 34, and 35, the Examiner
maintains that written description is lacking for the recitation "representing .
. . the plurality of sampling times with non-uniform time [intervals] between
adjacent sampling times with a measurement matrix." Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellants explain that the original Specification explains the measurement
matrix at paragraphs 113 and 114. Appeal Br. 15-16. These paragraphs
explain that "H denotes the K x N measurement matrix." Spec. ,r 113. The
paragraphs also refer to "K random locations to select the elements from x"
where xis the signal that is sensed ("[t]he sensing process for x may be
mathematically expressed"). Id.
The Specification as a whole supports Appellants' argument that this
passage would reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor
5
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
had possession of the recited subject matter at issue. The reference to "K
random locations" is most reasonably understood as referring to random
points in time at which the signal x is measured. Sampling the signal at
random points in time will necessarily result in non-uniform time intervals
between adjacent sampling times. The Specification illustrates non-uniform
sampling at, for example, Figure 27. Figure 27 is reproduced below:
OA
n
Ra.ndornly sampkxJ PPG al
mH.ier~sarnpling raHQ (USR} .::: 40
f ' .
Sampkindex
: \l.
. .
. '
800 l(K}O
Figure 27 "illustrates an example of a signal sensed at non-uniform sampling
instances." Spec. ,r 56. As can be seen in Figure 27, the sampling instances
(shown with vertical lines) are not evenly spaced across the x-axis (i.e., the
sample index axis). This indicates that the signal is sampled at non-uniform
time intervals, and paragraphs 113 and 114 indicate that the non-uniform
points in time for sampling (i.e., the "K random locations to select the
elements from x") are represented with the measurement matrix. See also,
6
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
e.g., id. at ,r,r 95 ("The PPG [photoplethysmograph] signals may be sampled
at non-uniform (i.e., random) time intervals .... "), 125 ("Figure 27
illustrates an example of the signal sensed at non-uniform sampling
instances at the USR [under-sampling ratio] of 40."). We therefore do not
sustain the Examiner's written description rejection of claims 1, 23, 34, and
3 5 and claims depending from these claims.
With respect to claims 61, 67, 70, and 71, the Examiner maintains that
written description is lacking for the recitation "the plurality of sampling
times with non-uniform time intervals between adjacent sampling times
being generated at least in part from comparing an actual signal with a target
signal." Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner's position with respect to this
recitation is similar to that for the recitation discussed above. Ans. 4--5.
To the extent Appellants' argument is the same as that addressed
above, it is again persuasive. Appellants also note, inter alia, that the
Specification discloses:
An actual signal 2644 may be compared with a target signal 2646 by
unit 2648 in order to update USR [ under-sampling ratio, see Spec.
,r 37] utilized for generating sampling instances. An updated USR
value ... may be also fed back to the sensor for adapting the USR
2616 of the sensor.
Appeal Br. 20-21 ( quoting Spec. ,r 105); see also Figure 26. The quoted
passage further supports that a person of skill in the art would reasonably
convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the recitation at
issue. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 61, 67,
70, and 71 and claims depending from those claims.
Rejections 2-10. Each of the Examiner's obviousness rejections
maintained on appeal rely, at least in part, on combining the Gunter, Smith,
7
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
and Biyani references. For example, the Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 23-
27, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gunter in view of
Smith and Biyani. Non-Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Gunter, even after being combined with
Smith's teachings, "does not disclose precoding, using the apparatus, at least
some of the sensed samples using the measurement matrix." Non-Final
Act. 6. Each independent claim (claims 1, 23, 34, and 35) that the Examiner
rejects under 35 U.S.C. § 103 recites this, or similar, language.
The Examiner finds that Biyani "discloses precoding, using the
apparatus, at least some of the sensed samples using a measurement
matrix ... for reconstructing data." Non-Final Act. 6. The Examiner
explains the reason for combining Biyani with Gunter/Smith as follows:
Id.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Gunter et
al. with precoding at least some of the sensed samples as disclosed by
Biyani et al. for the purpose of reconstructing data.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argued that the stated reason to
combine is insufficient. Appeal Br. 29. In response, the Examiner
elaborated on the reason to combine by explaining how Biyani uses
precoding to pre-compensate data samples before transmission. Ans. 6. The
Examiner then states that "[i]t would have been obvious to provide Gunter
with the feature of precoding the sensed samples as suggested by Biyani.
The motivation is to send/receive pre-compensated data samples for reliable
and accurate analysis." Ans. 6; see also, e.g., Ans. 7 (providing same
rationale), 8 (stating Gunter's operation would be improved because of "pre-
compensated data samples for more reliable and accurate analysis").
8
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner stated reason
to combine is still inadequate. Reply Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellants
explain that Biyani makes use of precoding in order to reduce or mitigate
cross-talk in the context of a digital subscriber line (DSL) system. Id.; see
also Biyani ,r 36 (indicating that the "multiple input multiple output (MIMO)
precoding signals" are used "[t]o address FEXT [far-end crosstalk"). The
Gunter/Smith combination, in contrast, relates to sensing signals relating to
measuring a biological sample. On the present record, the Examiner has not
adequately explained whether or not the Gunter/Smith combination would
experience crosstalk problems akin to those that Biyani addresses with
MIMO precoding. Moreover, the Examiner has not explained why Biyani
suggests a kind of precoding that would enhance reliability or accuracy in
the context of the Gunter/Smith combination.
Although not raised by the Examiner, we note that Gunter indicates
that crosstalk can be a problem. Gunter ,r 40. The Gunter crosstalk arises,
however, in a much different context than the context of Biyani. See Gunter
,r 40 (indicating that crosstalk arises with measuring methods using two
color markers with two different colored lasers); Biyani ,r 33 ("crosstalk is a
ubiquitous source of noise in a digital subscriber line (DSL) system").
Moreover, Gunter expressly provides a much different solution to "prevent"
this crosstalk. Id. at ,r 44 ("It is the intention of the invention, to prevent this
crosstalk of the fluorescence signals by deferring the red and green laser
light pulses relative to each other."). As such, absent further explanation
from the Examiner, it is uncertain whether or not Gunter's discussion of
crosstalk would lead one of skill in the art to be interested in any Biyani
method of addressing crosstalk.
9
Appeal2017-009689
Application 12/512,480
For the reasons above, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
stated reason to combine Biyani with Gunter and Smith is insufficient to
sustain the obviousness rejections based on Gunter, Smith, and Biyani.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-11, 23-35, 61---63, and 67-72.
REVERSED
10