Ex parte HAN

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 21, 2000

08268460 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 21, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte DONG-SEOG HAN
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
____________
HEARD: November 15, 2000
____________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 12. Claims 3 through 8 and 13
through 19 stand objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim. Claims 9 through 11 have been canceled.
Appellant's invention relates to a symbol timing recovery
apparatus in which the sampling clock is generated based on a
plurality of detected positive-going zero-crossing points.
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads
as follows:
1. A symbol timing recovery apparatus for sampling a
received signal containing symbols which is received in a
receiver of a high-speed data transmission system, and for
recovering a symbol timing of the received symbols, said
symbol timing apparatus comprising:
means for receiving the signal;
means for generating a sinusoidal wave based on said
received signal for recovering the symbol timing;
means for detecting a positive-going zero-crossing point
of the sinusoidal wave; and
means for generating a sampling clock to sample the
received signal based on a plurality of positive-going zero-
crossing points detected by said means for detecting a
positive-going zero-crossing point.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Tjahjadi et al. (Tjahjadi) 5,001,729 Mar. 19, 1991
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Tjahjadi.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed April 29, 1997) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 21, mailed October 16, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
3
appellant's Brief (Paper No. 14, filed July 2, 1996) and Reply
Brief (Paper No. 19, filed June 30, 1997) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1
and 12.
The examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4 and 5) that
Tjahjadi teaches using plural zero-crossing points to generate
the sampling clock. More specifically, the examiner latches
onto Tjahjadi's use of the word "points" in both the abstract
and column 22, line 25, and relies on the individual word
rather than looking to the entire disclosure. The examiner
should note that although Tjahjadi mentions locking onto the
zero-crossing points (in the abstract), the next sentence
refers to "[t]he lock onto the zero-crossing point" (i.e., a
single point). Similarly, in the sentence after that which
discusses synchronizing with the zero crossing points P (in
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
4
column 22), Tjahjadi states that "the primary sampling point
lies exactly at point P" (again using the singular form of the
word). Thus, the portions relied upon by the examiner are
ambiguous at best as to how many zero-crossing points, and
more specifically how many positive-going zero-crossing
points, are used to generate the sampling clock.
Taking the entire disclosure as a whole, we find that
Tjahjadi uses a single positive-going zero-crossing point each
cycle, as argued by appellant (Brief, pages 5-8). Tjahjadi
discloses (column 23, line 8-column 24, line 37) taking four
samples per cycle, determining which is the primary sample
point or the point closest to the positive-going zero-crossing
point, calculating the lead or lag step size from the
positive-going zero-crossing point, and adjusting the
recovered baud clock to cause the primary sampling point to
occur at the zero-crossing point. In other words, multiple
sample points are used to generate the sample clock, but not
multiple positive-going zero-crossing points. The clock,
rather, is generated so that the primary sample point
coincides with a single positive-going zero-crossing point.
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
5
Accordingly, Tjahjadi fails to meet every limitation of either
claim, and consequently does not anticipate claims 1 and 12.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-1700
Application No. 08/268,460
6
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MACPEAK & SEAS
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037-3202