Ex Parte Kirby

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 12, 2012

10495622 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ROBERT H. KIRKBY
________________

Appeal 2009-010560
Application 10/495,622
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010560
Application 10/495,622

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1, 3-8, and 10-35:
(I) Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, and 12-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bingham (US 6,035,000; issued Mar. 7,
2000); and
(II) Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Bingham in view of Flaig (US 2002/0159507 A1; published Oct.
31, 2002).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the invention as follows:
Signals are transmitted on sub-channels at different but
mutually overlapping frequencies. A receiver separates the
sub-channels into component signals z0 . . . [z]254[.] Prior to
decoding (7), interference estimates c0 . . . c254 are subtracted
from the components. These estimates are deduced from the
signals received on the idle sub-channels (or on sub-channels
from which a known or estimated signal is subtracted), for
example by calculating (10) parameters defining a model of the
interference and using these (11) to generate the interference
estimates.
(Abstract).

App
App

eal 2009-0
lication 10
Figure 2
Figure

Indepen
1. A
sub-chan
portions
se
correspo
ca
said su
correspo
referenc
bearing
content
estimate
estimate
10560
/495,622
is illustrat
2: is a bl
a
dent claim
method o
nels occu
of frequen
parating
nding to th
lculating
b-channel
nding to
e sub-chan
no transm
which ca
and (c) s
d and subt

ive of the
ock diagr
ccording
1 is illustr
f receivin
pying di
cy spectru
the sig
e respecti
interferenc
s, based
reference
nels bein
itted data
n be sub
ub-channe
racted to o
3
invention.
am of one
to the inv
ative of th
g signals c
fferent bu
m, compr
nals int
ve sub-cha
e estimat
on th
ones of
g one or m
, (b) sub-
tracted to
ls having
btain an in

example
ention.
e claimed
omprising
t mutuall
ising:
o compo
nnels;
es for at
e comp
said sub-
ore of (a
channels h
obtain a
a content
terference

of a receiv
subject m
a plurali
y overlap
nent sig
least som
onent sig
channels,
) sub-chan
aving a
n interfer
which ca
estimate;
er
atter:
ty of
ping
nals
e of
nals
said
nels
fixed
ence
n be

Appeal 2009-010560
Application 10/495,622

4
subtracting the interference estimates from the respective
component signals to produce adjusted component signals;
wherein for any particular sub-channel the interference
estimate therefor is calculated as a weighted sum of the
interference content of the component signals of some of said
reference sub-channels (excluding the particular sub-channel
for which the estimate is to be used);
wherein weights for said weighted sums are selected by
measuring errors in the particular sub-channel and adjusting the
weights in a sense such as to tend to reduce said error.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Bingham does not teach the claim 1
limitations of:
calculating interference estimates for at least some of
said sub-channels, . . . ;
subtracting the interference estimates from the respective
component signals to produce adjusted component signals;
wherein for any particular sub-channel the interference
estimate therefor is calculated as a weighted sum of the
interference content of the component signals of some of said
reference sub-channels (excluding the particular sub-channel
for which the estimate is to be used);
(App. Br. 21-23). Appellant specifically contends that the dummy tone
calculations performed by Bingham’s transmitter do not correspond to the
steps of claim 1, as a receiver performs all of the claimed steps (App. Br. 22-
23). Furthermore, Appellant’s method claim 1 uses adjusted weighted sums
of the interference content to calculate interference estimates at a receiver
(id.).

Appeal 2009-010560
Application 10/495,622

5
ANALYSIS
Bingham discloses two distinct embodiments: (1) a transmitter
embodiment for transmitting a dummy tone (sub-channel) in a signal, and
(2) a receiver embodiment for receiving a signal with a quiet tone (e.g., col.
2, l. 45 – col. 3, l. 8). In Bingham’s transmitter embodiment, the transmitter
calculates and transmits dummy tones that suppress interference from other
data sub-channels due to sidelobe transmissions (Abstract; col. 2; ll. 45-52;
col. 6, l. 65 - col. 7, l. 40). In Bingham’s receiver embodiment, the receiver
detects interference on designated quiet tones, uses the detected interference
to estimate interference, and cancels interference on adjacent active tones
(Abstract; col. 2, l. 66 - col. 3, l. 8).
In concluding that Bingham teaches the limitations of claim 1, the
Examiner relies on Bingham’s receiver embodiment to teach claim 1’s
limitation of “calculating interference estimates . . .” (Ans. 3 (citing
Bingham, col. 2, l. 66 - col. 3, l. 8)). The Examiner also relies on Bingham’s
transmitter embodiment to teach claim 1’s limitations of “subtracting the
interference estimates from the respective component signals to produce
adjusted component signals” and “. . . the interference estimate therefor is
calculated as a weighted sum . . .” (Ans. 4 (citing Bingham, col. 6, l. 65 -
col. 7, l. 40)). The Examiner also reasons that Bingham’s transmitter
dummy tone processes are applicable to Appellant’s claimed receiver
method because Bingham discloses that Bingham’s transmitter processes are
applied in both of Bingham’s receiver and transmitter embodiments (Ans. 13
(citing Bingham, Figs. 12, 13; col. 12, ll. 32-39; col. 14, ll. 45-67)).
Appellant’s arguments persuade us that Bingham does not anticipate
claim 1. While Bingham discloses a transceiver that includes both a
Appeal 2009-010560
Application 10/495,622

6
transmitter and receiver, the cited sections do not disclose that the processes
associated with Bingham’s transmitter, which use a transmitted dummy tone,
are also implemented in the processes associated with Bingham’s receiver,
which receives a quiet tone (id.).
Because the Examiner relied on the combination of two different
interference estimates from Bingham’s two separate embodiments or
components to correspond to the claimed single “interference estimate” that
is performed in the receiver, the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of anticipation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8, 15, 23, 30, 32, 33, and
35, which have similar limitations as claim 1. We likewise do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 16-22, 24-29, 31, and
34, which depend from independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, 30, and 33.
For the reasons stated above, we likewise do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 4 and 11, which depend from claims 1 and
8, respectively. The additionally cited reference, Flaig, does not cure the
deficiency of the anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8 explained above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, and 10-35 is
reversed.

REVERSED

rwk