Ex Parte Khayrallah

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2014

10863299 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014)

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