Ex Parte Kaewell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11495352 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN D. KAEWELL, JR.

____________

Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

2

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a system in which data at a variable rate is
transmitted and received at a communications receiver where the variable
rate data is decoded in an efficient, multichannel, multi-rate data decoder.
Spec. ¶ 5.
1
Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in
representative claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief:
1. A method for use in a code division multiple access (CDMA)
communication system comprising:
providing a plurality of data streams;
convolutionally encoding each data stream, each convolutionally
encoded data stream having a particular data rate;
adjusting the particular data rate of each data stream so that an
adjusted data rate of that data stream matches a data rate of a
CDMA transmission, wherein when the particular data rate of one
of the data streams is below the data rate of the CDMA
transmission, data of the one data stream is repeated to match the
data rate of the CDMA transmission;
combining and transmitting the adjusted data rate data streams as
the CDMA transmission, the adjusted data streams being

1
References to the Specification are directed to the Specification filed on
July 28, 2006, as amended on March 31, 2008, where noted.
Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

3

transmitted together in the CDMA transmission and the CDMA
transmission being quadrature modulated;
receiving the CDMA transmission;
separating the adjusted data streams from the received CDMA
transmission;
for each separated data stream, returning the data rate of that
separated data stream to the particular data rate of that data stream;
and
convolutionally decoding each data stream returned to the
particular data rate as recovered data of that data stream.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies on the following reference at pages 3 to 5 of the Answer:
Antonio U.S. 6,205,190 B1 Mar. 20, 2001
The Examiner provides the following ground of rejection, of which
Appellant seeks review: Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Antonio (Ans. 3-5).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to
Appellant’s arguments. After hearing
2
arguments on the issues raised in the
briefs, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject all the claims as obvious
over Antonio.

2
The Oral Hearing was held on September 10, 2013.
Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

4

Appellant raises one dispositive issue on appeal. The issue pertains to
whether Antonio processes “one data stream” versus the “plurality of data
streams,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply 2; Tr. 4:2-7.
3
Based on
the data-stream distinction, Appellant contends that Antonio does not teach
the remaining limitations that recite the “data streams” in claim 1. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
First, the Specification does not define the term “data stream.” Nor
does Appellant proffer an interpretation such that it would exclude the
Antonio frames received by the generator 20 and convolutional encoder 22.
In particular, the Examiner finds that the Antonio frames are a “plurality of
data streams” that are convolutionally encoded by Antonio’s convolutional
encoder 22, the output of which is variable data rate encoded frames. See
Ans. 6. Appellant attempts to distinguish these frames from the claimed
“data streams” by pointing out that “at one point in time one stream is being
processed at one of these rates,” referring to the four different data rates of
Antonio’s frames. Tr. 4:8-16 (emphasis added). Appellant emphasizes that
the Antonio frames—variable encoded frames—are, however, each output
every 20 milliseconds. Tr. 5:13-14, 6:3, 9-13, 7:10. Appellant’s key point
focuses on the “one frame” that is processed at any given time, in contrast
with the claimed “plurality of data streams.” Tr. 7:18-25. However, if a
frame in Antonio is “one stream,” as Appellant argues, Antonio then teaches
a “plurality of data streams” because more than one frame is convolutionally
encoded by Antonio’s convolutional encoder, and each of the many frames

3
Record of Oral Hearing held September 10, 2013 (Tr.)
Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

5

is encoded with a variable data rate. The broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim language does not exclude sequentially generated “plurality of
data streams,” such as the Antonio frames.
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that
Antonio’s frames are not a “plurality of data streams” because the frames are
not “transmitted together,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11; Tr. 8:15-18.
In particular, Appellant alleges that the claims require that the “data
streams” are transmitted simultaneously, not sequentially. Tr. 10:21-25. We
are not persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “data streams
transmitted together” precludes sequential transmission of data frames. We
construe the word “together” according to the plain and ordinary meaning of
the term as we see no evidence of the claims reciting the term in accordance
with a special meaning. As evidence of that plain and ordinary meaning we
look to a dictionary, which defines “together” as “at one time” and “in
succession.” Definition together (adv), 3, WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1993). The definition is
consistent with the Specification. The claim fails to constrain the recited
“data streams” to be generated in any particular order or during a specified
time interval. Therefore, we conclude that the scope of claim 1 is not
limited to a transmission of “data streams” whereby the streams are
transmitted simultaneously, as Appellant argues.
We are further unpersuaded by the argument that the recitations of
“combining” and “separating” mandate a different conclusion. Contrary to
Appellant’s assertion, the Specification does not define either of these terms
as having a special meaning and their use is consistent with the plain and
Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

6

ordinary meaning. See Tr. 11:13-21 (arguing that “combined” and
“combining” have both a special meaning and a plain and ordinary
meaning); see, e.g., Spec. 8-9 (“symbols are combined”), 10 (“common
addressing and data transfer is further combined”). The claim, thus, uses the
word “combining” in the plain and ordinary sense, which does not limit the
claim scope to any specific manner of combination (e.g., sequential versus
simultaneous). Nor do the words “separating” and “separated” imply the
strict reading of the claim that Appellant advocates. Tr. 11:23-25 (arguing
that “separated” implies that they are “together. If they are sequential, you
wouldn’t need to separate them.”). We note that a transmission of sequential
frames in Antonio, when received, would be processed on a frame-by-frame
basis, thereby “separating” the frames (“data streams”) from each other.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions that Antonio renders obvious the subject matter of
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). We group remaining pending claims 2-13 with independent
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
Appeal 2010-005408
Application 11/495,352

7

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2011).

AFFIRMED

ELD