Ex Parte IkedaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201612697724 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/697,724 02/01/2010 61650 7590 06/09/2016 MYERS WOLIN, LLC 100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA North Tower, 6th Floor MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Norihiro IKEDA 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. FJST 1990 2593 EXAMINER KNAPP, JUSTIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2112 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2016 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): patent@myerswolin.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte NORIHIRO IKEDA Appeal2014-007023 Application 12/697, 724 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, 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 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-007023 Application 12/697 ,724 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to "to an error detection device, error correction/error detection decoding device and method" (Spec.i-fl ). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An error detection method that detects whether or not an input data sequence has an error wherein the input data sequence is created at an encoder by expressing a data sequence {aN-1, aN-2 , .. . ,a1, ao} having N bit length as a polynomial A(x) = aN-10-1 +a N-2 + ... +a1x+ao = L,aixi, dividing the polynomial by a generator polynomial G(x) for generating an error detection code and adding the error detection code to the data sequence so that the remainder becomes 'O', the method compnsmg: calculating remainder values by dividing polynomials xi (i=O, 1, .. , N-1) of data sequences having a' 1' only at an ith bit position (i=O, 1, .. , N-1) by said generator polynomial G(x) and saving the obtained remainder values in a memory; inputting together with an input data sequence, bit position information that indicates the proper bit position of each data of the input data sequence; finding from the memory remainder values that correspond to the proper bit positions of data of the input data sequence that are not 'O', and performing bit corresponding addition of each of the found remainder values; and determining that there is no error in the input data sequence when all of the bits of an addition result obtained by the bit-corresponding addition become 'O', and otherwise determining that there is error. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (or 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, pre AIA), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 2 Appeal2014-007023 Application 12/697 ,724 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Blightman (US 2004/0158793 Al; iss. Aug. 12, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Blightman and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art (AAPA). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 USC§ 112 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend the Specification, page 12, lines 18-22, supports and clearly describes the requirement "calculating remainder values by dividing polynomials . . . of data sequences having a '1' only at an ith bit position" (id.). We do not agree. This portion of the Specification merely recites: The remainder Ri(x) that is obtained by dividing polynomial xi that corresponds to the ith bit position of the input bit sequence by G(x) can be expressed as the following. x'· = R,(x)+Q.(x)G(x) (4) Here, xi indicates a bits-sequence (polynomial) which is created by adding i number of "Os" after a 1. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification and Figures 3 and 6 describe all remainder values are calculated at all bit positions ("1" or "O") and stored (Ans. 2-3). Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 3 Appeal2014-007023 Application 12/697 ,724 Rejection under 35 USC§ 102(b) Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Blightman anticipates Appellant's independent claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 11). Particularly, Appellant contends Blightman requires CR Cs (cyclic redundancy checks) to be calculated for every data block portion and not only a subset of portions of a data block as claimed (App. Br. 12, 14). Appellant also argues Blightman does not disclose remainder values of data portions are calculated based on the claimed criterion of having a "1" only at an ith position, as claimed (App. Br. 12-13, 14--15). We do not agree. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the Specification discloses all remainder values are calculated and stored in a memory (Ans. 2-3). We further agree Blightman discloses a weighted remainder of CR Cs can be added to create a sum of weighted remainder CR Cs. That is, if "the CRC of all the data portions matches the CRC that was included in one of the packets, then the data portions may be assumed to be error free" (emphasis omitted) (Ans. 4). Therefore, a sum equal to "O" matches a CRC of "O" (id.). We further note, as we discuss above regarding the§ 112 rejection, the argued limitation is not supported by Appellant's Specification. Thus, the Examiner has not erred in finding independent claims 1 and 7 anticipated by Blightman, in addition to dependent claims 2--4 and 8-10, not separately argued. Rejection under 35 USC§ 103 Appellant presents substantially the same argument, as discussed above, for independent claims 5 and 11, asserting Blightman does not teach or suggest the claim limitations set forth for independent claims 1 and 7, and AAPA does not cure the deficiencies ofBlightman (App. Br. 16-21). 4 Appeal2014-007023 Application 12/697 ,724 As we found above, Blightman is not deficient. Thus, for the same reasons set forth above, the Examiner has not erred in finding independent claims 5 and 11 obvious over the combination of Blightman and AAP A, in addition to dependent claims 6 and 12, not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation