Ex Parte Julian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2015

11020342 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID JONATHAN JULIAN
____________________

Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The invention relates to decoder selection in communication systems.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for selecting a filter for decoding forward link
(FL) information in a wireless communication network, the
method comprising:

decoding reverse link (RL) information, received from an
access terminal, by a plurality of decoders, each being
optimized based on a different set of parameters;

comparing a plurality of outputs from the decoders, based
on a metric, thereby determining a desired decoder to decode
forward link (FL) information; and

forwarding information about the desired decoder to the
access terminal for decoding FL information.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Langberg
Nystrom
Perlow
Cho
US 5,852,630
US 5,982,766
US 7,224,726 B2
US 7,386,277 B2
Dec. 22, 1998
Nov. 9, 1999
May 29, 2007
June 10, 2008
Ling
Thyssen
US 2002/0097785 A1
US 2005/0286657 A1
July 25, 2002
Dec. 29, 2005
Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
3

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 7, 14, 15, 20, 40, 42, and 44 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nystrom and Cho.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nystrom, Cho, and Ling.
Claims 5, 6, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nystrom, Cho, and Thyssen.
Claims 8, 9, 21, 22, 34, 35, 41, 43, and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thyssen and Perlow.
Claims 10, 11, 23, 24, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thyssen, Perlow, and Ling.
Claims 12, 13, 25, 26, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thyssen, Perlow, and Cho.
Claims 27, 28, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nystrom, Cho, and Langberg.
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nystrom, Cho, Langberg, and Ling.
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nystrom, Cho, Langberg, and Thyssen.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1–7, 14–20, 27–33, 40, 42, and 44
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds Nystrom discloses “decoding
reverse link (RL) information, received from an access terminal, by a
plurality of decoders” (Final Rej. 7). The Examiner relies on the
Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
4
combination of Cho and Nystrom in concluding it would have been obvious
to perform “determining a desired decoder to decode forward link (FL)
information; and forwarding information about the desired decoder to the
access terminal for decoding FL information” (Final Rej. 8–9). Appellant
contends the combination of Nystrom and Cho fails to disclose these
features (App. Br. 9–15). We agree with Appellant.
The portion of Nystrom cited by the Examiner (Final Rej. 7) describes
a coding mode identification method performed by a mobile station
(Nystrom, col. 4, ll. 25–50). More specifically, “[i]n order to be able to
perform proper speech decoding at mobile station MS, the channel decoder
has to deliver proper user data to the speech decoder. Thus, the receiver has
to decide which mode actually was used by base station BS.” (Nystrom, col.
4, ll. 19–23). Accordingly, Nystrom, in contrast to claim 1 which recites
“decoding reverse link (RL) information, received from an access terminal,”
discloses decoding forward link information received from a base station.
Cho does not cure the deficiencies of Nystrom. The Examiner relies
on Cho’s Figure 5, which shows a transmitter and a receiver connected via a
data channel and a feedback channel. “The receiver 80 selects one from the
three MCS [modulation and coding scheme] groups according to the
measured quality of the data channel 70, and transmits information on the
selected MCS group to the transmitter 60 via the feedback channel 72” (Cho,
col. 8, ll. 6–10). Even if we agree with the Examiner that Cho’s MCS
selection meets the limitation of “determining a desired decoder” (see Final
Rej. 8), Cho merely describes a generic transmitter and receiver without
specifying a reverse link (i.e., from an access terminal to an access point
(see, e.g., Spec. Fig. 2)) or forward link (i.e., from an access point to an
access terminal (see, e.g., Spec. Fig. 2)) direction of communication between
Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
5
the transmitter and receiver. Thus, the Examiner has not shown that Cho
teaches “determining a desired decoder to decode forward link (FL)
information; and forwarding information about the desired decoder to the
access terminal for decoding FL information.”
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 14, 27, 40, 42,
and 44 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–7,
15–20, and 28–33 for similar reasons.

Claims 8–13, 21–26, 34–39, 41, 43, and 45
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner finds Thyssen discloses “receiving,
. . . information identifying a desired decoder; and decoding FL information
using the desired decoder,” but relies on Perlow for teaching the limitation
of receiving the information “from an access point” (Final Rej. 15).
Appellant contends the combination of Perlow with Thyssen fails to teach
“receiving, from an access point, information identifying a desired decoder”
(App. Br. 18–19). We agree with Appellant.
The Examiner cites to the Abstract of Perlow, which discloses “[t]he
receiver includes a plurality of demodulation and decoding schemes, one of
which is selected based on the results of a channel estimation analysis.” As
Appellant argues (App. Br. 18–19), Perlow does not specify receiving any
information from an access point. In response, the Examiner asserts “the
received information would be decoded and the received information would
be decoded based on the received information from the other side of the
channel” (Ans. 8). The Examiner does not, however, point to any disclosure
in Thyssen or Perlow of receiving information from an access point, let
alone information identifying a decoder.
Appeal 2012-012112
Application 11/020,342
6
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 8, independent claims 21, 34, 41, 43,
and 45, and dependent claims 9–13, 22–26, and 35–39 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–45
is reversed.

REVERSED

kis