Ex Parte HIRTH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12828568 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/828,568 07/01/2010 Ryan E. HIRTH
49579 7590 03/01/2016
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
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.
2875.4460001 7062
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, STEVEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RY AN E. HIRTH
Appeal 2014-001691
Application 12/828,568
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20. Claims 4, 12, and 19 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2014-001691
Application 12/828,568
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is directed to "a method and apparatus for
detecting frame delimiters in Ethernet Passive Optical Network (EPON)
frames with Forward Error Correction (FEC) code" (Spec. i-f 2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method for identifying an even delimiter in a
forward error correction (FEC)-coded Ethernet frame,
compnsmg:
receiving an FEC-coded Ethernet frame that includes an
even delimiter used to separate a conventional Ethernet frame
and FEC parity bits in the FEC-coded Ethernet frame, wherein
the even delimiter is a predetermined bit sequence;
scanning a bit stream of the FEC-coded Ethernet frame;
determining a first Hamming distance between a first
consecutive set of frame bits in the bit stream and the even
delimiter, wherein the first Hamming distance is shorter than a
predefined value;
determining a second Hamming distance between a
subsequent second consecutive set of frame bits in the bit stream
and the even delimiter, wherein the second Hamming distance is
shorter than the predefined value;
selecting one of the first and second sets of frame bits
having the shorter Hamming distance as the even delimiter.
(Contested limitation emphasized).
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofNuyen (US 7,152,199 B2; Dec.
19, 2006) and Leung (US 7,953,324 B2; May 31, 2011).
2
Appeal2014-001691
Application 12/828,568
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Leung cures
Nuyen's deficiency by disclosing the claim limitations "determining a first
Hamming distance between a first consecutive set of frame bits" and an even
delimiter, "determining a second Hamming distance between a subsequent
second consecutive set of frame bits" and the even delimiter, and "selecting
one of the first and second sets of frame bits having the shorter Hamming
distance as the even delimiter" (App. Br. 9--14; Reply Br. 3-7). Particularly,
Appellant asserts the claim requires one of first and second sets of bit frames
is determined to have a shorter Hamming distance, and that set is selected as
the even delimiter (Reply Br. 5). In contrast, Leung merely discloses any
calculated Hamming distance is compared to only a synchronization
threshold for determining whether a successful synchronization has
occurred-Leung does not compare a first Hamming distance with a second
Hamming distance and then select the shorter distance as the even delimiter
(id.). We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner finds Leung receives data in a shift register that "acts as
a 'sliding window' in which a Hamming distance is calculated from its
contents," and"[ w ]hen the Hamming distance meets a minimum
distance ... a Synchronization Decision Module selects the corresponding
bits in the shift register as the SOD sync delimiter (col. 7, lines 53-58)"
(Ans. 2). The Examiner, in the Final Action also points to columns 7 and 8
and Figures 4 and 6 as teaching the contested claim limitations (Final Act.
6-7). However, based on the evidence of record and in the absence of
sufficient reasoning in support of the rejection, the Examiner has not
established Leung teaches or suggests the contested limitations that were not
3
Appeal2014-001691
Application 12/828,568
found by the Examiner to be taught or suggested by the primary Nuyen
reference. (Final Act. 6-7).
Thus, we agree with Appellant the Examiner erred in finding Leung
teaches or suggests Appellant's contested claim limitations. We therefore do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Independent
claims 9 and 1 7 each recite the aforementioned contested "selecting"
limitation using similar commensurate language. Therefore, we reverse
claims 9 and 1 7 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
Because we have reversed the Examiner's rejection of each independent
claim, we also reverse the § 103 rejection of each associated dependent claim
on appeal.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
4