Ex Parte Koslov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2013

10589764 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSHUA LAWRENCE KOSLOV
____________

Appeal 2011-004726
Application 10/589,764
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before GLENN J. PERRY, DAVID C. McKONE, and
STACEY G. WHITE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-004726
Application 10/589,764

2
SUMMARY
Before us is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a device and method for recovering a
carrier from a multi-layer modulated signal. (Abstract). Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method for use in a receiver, the method
comprising:
receiving a multi-level modulation signal having at
least two signal layers;
recovering a carrier from the received multi-level
modulation signal as a function of soft decisions with
respect to a first layer of the at least two layers; and
using the recovered carrier to recover a different
layer of the at least two signal layers.

The Rejection
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
(WO 02/089371 A1) and Jaffe (U.S. 7,499,507 B2).

ISSUE
Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s positions presents the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references teach or
suggest “recovering a carrier from the received multi-level modulation
Appeal 2011-004726
Application 10/589,764

3
signal as a function of soft decisions with respect to a first layer of the at
least two layers” as recited by claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “recovering a carrier from the received
multi-level modulation signal as a function of soft decisions with respect to a
first layer of the at least two layers.” Independent claims 10, 16, and 19
recite commensurate limitations. App. Br. 14-15. Appellant argues that
Chen does not suggest or describe recovering a carrier as a function of soft
decisions. App. Br. 11-13.
Chen describes a system and method whereby a first layer of a multi-
layer signal is demodulated and decoded and the output from that process is
used to extract another layer of that multi-layer signal, which is then
demodulated and decoded. Ans. 7-8 (citing Chen Figs. 4A-B, 2:5-15, 7:23-
10:18, and claim 6). According to Chen,
the demodulator 404 produces the upper carrier signal 422 (as
well as the stable demodulated signal output 420). The upper
carrier signal is output to the remodulator 406, which
effectively produces an idealized upper layer signal which
includes the upper layer carrier for subtraction from the
received combined signal 416.

Chen 8 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Chen
teaches recovering the carrier as a function of decisions with respect to the
first layer and using that recovered carrier to recover another layer of the
signal. Ans. 7-8.
The Examiner relies on Jaffe to teach replacing “hard decisions” with
“soft decisions.” Ans. 8 (citing Jaffe Fig. 3, Abstract, and 3:36-62). Jaffe
Appeal 2011-004726
Application 10/589,764

4
discusses replacing a slicer 215 with a Viterbi decoder, which “uses past and
future data as well as correlations within the data to produce a current
symbol that is more likely to be correct than if only the present data is used
(such as with a typical data slicer).” Jaffe 3:51-54. The Examiner interprets
Jaffe’s Viterbi decoder to be a device that implements soft decisions as
opposed to Jaffe’s data slicer that implements hard decisions. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that a soft decision means “an error correcting code is used
in the receiver to further process the sequence of received symbols generated
by hard decisions to determine the most likely received sequence of
symbols.” App. Br. 10. However, Appellant does not cite to any definition
or limiting description in the Specification to support a construction
requiring error correction or precluding a Viterbi decoder as described in
Jaffe. Moreover, even if recovering a carrier as a function of soft decisions
did require error correction, Appellant has not persuasively explained why
recovering a carrier using a Jaffe’s Viterbi decoder fails to meet such a
requirement. Thus, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Chen as modified by Jaffe teaches recovering a carrier as a
function of soft decisions. As such, Appellant has not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of independent claims 1, 10, 16, and 19 and dependent claims 2-9,
11-15, 17, 18, and 20-27, which were not separately argued.

Appeal 2011-004726
Application 10/589,764

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 is affirmed. 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).

AFFIRMED

msc