Ex Parte Ionita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2018

14503547 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018)

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