Ex Parte Ionita et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814503547 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/503,547 10/01/2014 23494 7590 06/04/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Corina Ioana Ionita 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. TI-74378 7709 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LINH V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CORINA IO ANA I ONITA, JUNE CHUL ROH, MOHAMED F. MANSOUR, and SRINATH HOSUR1 (Applicant: TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED) Appeal2017---009159 Application 14/503,547 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-009159 Application 14/503,547 Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6, 8-13, 15-25, and 27-34. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants' subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A method comprising: receiving multiple bits to be transmitted; applying a first polar code to a first subset of the multiple bits to generate first encoded bits, the first encoded bits associated with a first bit level of a multilevel coding scheme; generating one or more symbols using the first encoded bits and bits associated with a second bit level of the multilevel coding scheme; and wherein the first polar code is associated with a first coding rate. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Cairns Jahan Mahdavifar Wang US 6,707,857 Bl US 2006/0140302 Al US 2014-0208183 Al US 2015/0078486 Al THE REJECTIONS 2 Mar. 16,2004 June 29, 2006 July 24, 2014 Mar. 19, 2015 Appeal2017-009159 Application 14/503,547 1. Claims 15, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) over Wang. 2. Claims 1--4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shen in view of Wang. 3. Claims 16-18 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang in view of Shen. 4. Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shen combined with Wang as applied to claims 1 and 8 and further in view of Cairns. 5. Claims 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang combined with Shen as applied to claims 16 and 21 and further in view of Jahan. 6. Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shen combined with Wang as applied to claims 1-2 and 8-9 and further in view of Mahdavifar. 7. Claims 31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang as applied to claims 15 and 20 and further in view of Mahdavifar. 8. Claims 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Wang combined with Shen as applied to claims 16 and 21 and further in view of Mahdavifar. 3 Appeal2017-009159 Application 14/503,547 ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence and each of the respective positions set forth in the record, we find that the preponderance of evidence supports Appellants' position, and we thus reverse each rejection, with emphasis as follows. Rejections 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 The dispositive issue is whether Wang discloses "a multilevel coding scheme." We interpret this phrase in the context of the present Specification as requiring tandem polar encoders (decoders). Appellants argue that Wang does not use tandem encoders (decoders). Appeal Br. 10. This is what Appellants mean when arguing, on page 10 of the Appeal Brief, that Wang discloses a "concatenated" polar coding technique, which is different from the "multilevel" polar coding technique as claimed. The Examiner does not specifically address this point made by Appellants in the Answer. 2 We agree with Appellants that Wang does not use MLC polar encoding for both levels, and thus reverse Rejection 1. Because the Examiner does not rely upon the additionally applied references in Rejections 3, 5, 7, and 8, to cure the stated deficiencies of Wang as discussed, supra, we also reverse these rejections. 2 The Examiner's failure to respond to this argument in the record does not fulfill one of the requirements for an Examiner's Answer as set forth by MPEP 2677 and 37 CPR 41.69 which provides: Response to Argument. A statement of whether the examiner disagrees with each of the contentions of appellants and respondents in their briefs with respect to the issues presented, and an explanation of the reasons for disagreement with any such contentions. 4 Appeal2017-009159 Application 14/503,547 Rejections 2, 4, and 6 In Rejection 2, claims 1--4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shen in view of Wang. The Examiner's findings are presented on pages 3--4 and 6-10 of the Final Office Action and on pages 9-10 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Figure 4 of Shen discloses a method of a multilevel coding scheme (first polar encoding and second polar encoding) comprising: generating data ( data after second polar encoding) using first encoded bits (output of first polar encoding) and bits (768 bits) associated with a second bit level (second polar encoding) of the multilevel coding scheme (first polar encoding, second polar encoding). Final Act. 3. The Examiner states that Shen does not disclose generating one or more symbols using the first encoded bits ( output 512 bits of first polar encoding bits) and bits associated with a second bit level (768 bits) of the multilevel coding scheme (First polar and Second polar encoding level). Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies upon Wang, and states that Figure 2 of Wang discloses a method comprising: receiving multiple bits (a bit stream of 101) to be transmitted; applying a first polar code (102; see paragraph 0057 disclosing the first coding includes polar coding) to a first subset of the multiple bits (paragraph 0056) to generate first encoded bits (first output data of 102), the first encoded bits (first output data of 102) associated with a first bit level (paragraph 0056 discloses first coding scheme is applied to at least one of the more than one bit-stream to obtain first output data) of a multilevel coding scheme (102, 103) 5 Appeal2017-009159 Application 14/503,547 [ emphasis added]; generating one or more symbols (104; paragraph 0061) using the first encoded bits (first output data of 102) and bits associated with a second bit level ( second output data of 103 for second encoding the remaining bit stream). Final Act. 3--4. However, as discussed supra, we agree with Appellants that Wang does not pertain to a multilevel coding scheme on both levels. Hence, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection, and reverse Rejection 2 (as well as Rejections 4 and 6 for the same reasons). DECISION Each rejection is reversed. ORDER REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation