Ex Parte KhayrallahDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201410863299 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/863,299 06/08/2004 Ali S. Khayrallah 4015-5170 / P18039-US1 6322 24112 7590 02/25/2014 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER JOSEPH, JAISON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALI S. KHAYRALLAH ____________ Appeal 2011-008087 Application 10/863,299 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008087 Application 10/863,299 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finally rejected claims 6-10, 21-24, 26-30, and 41-46. Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION This invention relates to demodulating communication signal processing. (Spec. ¶[0001]). Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 6. A method of suppressing interference in a received signal that includes a desired signal, the method comprising: [a] generating a first residual between the received signal and each candidate signal in a set of candidate signals, wherein each candidate signal is postulated as the desired signal; [b] calculating an interference component for each first residual as a least squares estimate; [c] generating a second residual from each first residual by removing the corresponding interference component; and [d] determining a best candidate signal by evaluating the second residuals based on identifying a smallest second residual and selecting the corresponding candidate signal as a best candidate for the desired signal. (Disputed limitations emphasized, steps lettered). REJECTIONS R1. Claims 6-10, 21-24, 26-30, and 41-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,249,518 B1("Cui"). Appeal 2011-008087 Application 10/863,299 3 R2. Claims 45 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Cui in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,496,534 B1("Shimizu"). ANALYSIS R1. CLAIM 6 Regarding the claim 6 limitations "A method of suppressing interference in a received signal that includes a desired signal, the method comprising: [a] generating a first residual between the received signal and each candidate signal in a set of candidate signals, wherein each candidate signal is postulated as the desired signal; . . . [d] determining a best candidate signal by evaluating the second residuals based on identifying a smallest second residual and selecting the corresponding candidate signal as a best candidate for the desired signal," (emphases added), Appellant principally contends the Examiner improperly relies upon multiple different signals in Cui (SYNC signal and the r(n+1) signal) for the claimed "received signal that includes a desired signal." (See Reply Br. 2, 6). Appellant's contentions are persuasive. We agree the Examiner improperly relies upon two signals (Cui Fig. 5; R and SYNC) in Cui as corresponding to the claimed "received signal" that includes a desired (SYNC signal ) related to limitations in steps [a] and [b], and upon a different desired signal (which is different because it is with respect to a different received signal (Cui Fig. 5; r(n+1)) for steps [c] and [d]. (Ans. 10- 15; See Reply Br. 2, 6). As a matter of claim construction, we conclude that claim 6 requires that limitations [a]'s "candidate signal," [b]'s "first residual," [c]'s "second residual" and [d]'s "best candidate signal" are included in or derived from the preamble's "a received signal that includes a desired Appeal 2011-008087 Application 10/863,299 4 signal." (See Reply Br. 2). Therefore, in the anticipation rejection, the reference must disclose the signals included in or derived from the same received signal for all steps [a] to [d] as corresponding to the preambles' "received signal," not one received signal for steps [a] and [b], and signals included in or derived from a different received signal for steps [c] and [d]. For limitations [a] and [b], the Examiner relies upon Cui's SYNC word and R (Cui Fig. 5; Ans. 10-13), which are used during the training period 402 (Ans. 11; Cui col. 7, l. 62 – col. 8, l. 2; Fig. 5), as corresponding to the "received signal" that is at least used to derive limitations [a]'s "candidate signal," and [b]'s "first residual." (See Ans. 10-13). In contrast, for limitations [c] and [d], the Examiner relies upon Cui's received signal r(n+1) (Cui Fig. 5, Ans. 15), which is used during the data period 404 (Cui col. 8, ll. 62 – 66; Cui fig. 5 (r(n+1); fig. 4) to correspond to the "received signal" that is used to derive [c]'s "second residual" and [d]'s" best candidate for the desired signal." (See Ans. 15, 4-5; Cui col. 8, l. 62 – col. 10, ll. 10). Thus, because the Examiner relies upon multiple different signals in Cui (R, and r(n+1) (Fig. 5) as corresponding the claimed "received signal that includes a desired signal," we are persuaded the Examiner erred. Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellant's contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support the Examiner's finding that Appellant's claim 6 is anticipated by Cui. We are of the view that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show express or inherent anticipation regarding the disputed limitations of claim 6. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of independent claim 6 and of independent claim 26, which recites commensurate language. We also Appeal 2011-008087 Application 10/863,299 5 reverse claims 7-10, 21-24, 27-30, and 41-44, which depend from claims 6 and 26. R2. CLAIMS 45 AND 46 Because we reversed the Examiner’s rejection (R1) of independent claim 26, from which claims 45 and 46 depend, and because the Examiner did not show the additional cited secondary reference Shimizu overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies of base reference Cui, we also reverse the rejection R2 of dependent claims 45 and 46. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 6-10, 21-24, 26-30, and 41-44 under § 102(b). We reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 45 and 46 under § 103(a). REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation