Ex Parte Landau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2014

11364752 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/364,752 02/28/2006 Uri M. Landau 3875.0890000 9707
26111 7590 03/21/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HANNON, CHRISTIAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2014 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 URI M. LANDAU, FRANCIS SWARTS and MARK KENT
___________

Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-26. Appeal
Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to a method for mobile user equipment
channel acquisition in wideband code division multiple access (WCDMA)
signals. Specification [0003].

Representative Claims (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for signal processing, the method comprising:
performing, by one or more processors and/or circuits in a wireless
device:
configuring a local oscillator to generate a plurality of frequencies,
where each frequency in said plurality of frequencies is utilized to
demodulate signals received from a remote transmitter to generate a
corresponding one of a plurality of baseband signals;
generating an indicator signal by comparing each of said baseband
signals to a known pattern;
determining, using said generated indicator signal, which of said
plurality of frequencies generated by said local oscillator to utilize for
further demodulating said signals received from said remote
transmitter; and
determining a frequency offset of said local oscillator based on said
generated indicator signal.

17. A system for processing signals, the system comprising:
one or more circuits for use in a wireless device, said one or more
circuits comprising a local oscillator and said one or more circuits
being operable to:
configure said local oscillator to generate a plurality of frequencies,
where each frequency in said plurality of frequencies is utilized to
demodulate signals received from a remote transmitter to generate a
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

3
corresponding one of a plurality of baseband signals;
generate an indicator signal by comparing each of said baseband
signals to a known pattern;
determine, using said generated indicator signal, which of said
plurality of frequencies generated by said local oscillator to utilize for
further demodulating said signals received from said remote
transmitter; and
determine a frequency offset of said local oscillator based on said
generated indicator signal.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dowling (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2001/0055328 A1; published December 27, 2001) and Chiodini (U.S. Patent
Number 6,882,691 B2; issued April 19, 2005). Answer 3-4; Final Rejection
2-4.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue Chiodini’s teachings fail to address Dowling’s
deficiency as indicated by the Examiner. Appeal Brief 8. Appellants argue
Chiodini discloses that within wireless communications, there are
impairments to the transmitted signal not present in wired networks. Id.
These impairments include base and remote unit oscillator mismatch
induced frequency offset. Id.
Appellants further argue:
The Appellant respectfully submits that Chiodini does not
disclose, teach, or suggest, at least, “determining a frequency
offset of said local oscillator based on said generated
indicator signal,” as recited by the Appellant in claim 1. The
frequency offset disclosed in Chiodini is one that is introduced
by a mismatch between a base station oscillator and a remote
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

4
station oscillator (see above). That is, the frequency offset
disclosed in Chiodini is the estimated frequency difference (i.e.,
mismatch) between two distinct and separate oscillators.
Therefore, while Chiodini discloses estimating a frequency
offset between two oscillators, Chiodini does not disclose
determining an individual frequency offset for either one or
both of the two local oscillators. In fact, Chiodini discloses
determining a difference between the two oscillators and not the
individual offset for each of the two oscillators.

Id. at 9.
The Examiner finds Chiodini teaches a local oscillator frequency
offset of a local oscillator is determined based on a generated indicator
signal and therefore it would have been obvious to modify Dowling “to
include the frequency-offset mitigation techniques of Chiodini in order to
provide for a higher quality signal, thereby improving reception.” Answer 4.
The Examiner further finds:
[I]n the instant specification of the case on appeal, the
“frequency offset of said local oscillator” is in fact determined
based upon a signal from a base station, just as is taught by
Chiodini. Page 7, paragraph [0020] of the Appellant’s
specification describes a wireless device with a baseband
processor that detects a primary synchronization channel code
from a base station.

Answer 6.
However, Appellants contend:
Appellant notes that the arguments presented on appeal are not
directed at whether an offset of a local oscillator is determined
utilizing a signal from a base station. Instead, the Appellant’s
position remains that the mismatch offset between two separate
oscillators located in two distinct devices (e.g., a base station
and a remote station) as taught by Chiodini is not the same or
equivalent to the “frequency offset of said local oscillator” as
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

5
recited in the independent claims. Moreover, Chiodini fails to
describe how one could or may obtain the frequency offset of
either one of these two oscillators from the knowledge of their
relative frequency offset.

Reply Brief 4.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Chiodini
teaches or suggests the frequency offset is an impairment that must be
addressed in order to improve digital signal processing. Chiodini, column 1,
lines 35-53. Specifically, Chiodini discloses, “This processing block
digitally estimates the oscillator mismatch between the base- and remote-
station and corrects for it in subsequent data demodulation.” Id. at lines 49-
53.
Consequently, we do not find there is a patentable distinction between
estimating a frequency offset as taught by Chiodini and determining a
frequency offset of a local oscillator as required in independent claim 1. The
frequency offset is merely determined in claim 1 and it is clear, Chiodini
discloses determining the frequency offset via estimation as discussed
above. Further, the claim limitation does not exclude the inclusion of
multiple oscillators because regardless of the number of oscillators present
in the prior art, at least one will have its frequency offset determined as
required by claim 1. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 for the reasons discussed above.
Appellants argue claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 1 and patentably
distinguishes over the Dowling and Chiodini combination for the same
reasons asserted with respect to claim 1. Appeal Brief 11-12. We sustain
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

6
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons
discussed above.1
Appellants argue claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 and
patentably distinguishes over the Dowling and Chiodini combination for the
same reasons as with claim 1. Appeal Brief 12.
Appellants further argue:
Appellant has presented arguments above that show that neither
Dowling nor Chiodini, alone or in combination, discloses,
teaches, or suggests “one or more circuits for use in a
wireless device, said one or more circuits comprising a local
oscillator and said one or more circuits being operable to: ...
determine a frequency offset of said local oscillator based on
said generated indicator signal,” as recited by the Appellant
in claim 17. Consequently, the Appellant respectfully requests
that the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) be
reversed.

Id.
We observe the limitation at issue is a process limitation while claim
17 is directed to a system relying upon circuitry. As such, we conclude
claim 17 is a hybrid claim and the limitation at issue should not be accorded
patentable weight due to the indefinite scope of the claim. See IPXL
Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
if independent claim 9 should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Independent claim 9 recites “[a] machine-readable storage having stored
thereon, a computer program having at least one code session for signal
processing . . . .” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “machine-
readable storage” language of independent claim 9, when read in light of
Appellants’ Specification, is inclusive of transitory propagating signals. See
Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

7
Further, claim 17 recites that the circuits are “operable to” therefore
indicating an intended use or purpose. “An intended use or purpose usually
will not limit the scope of a patent claim because such statements usually do
no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer
Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the
claim’s preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a
statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id.;
see also Superior Industries, Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 2013-1302, 2014 WL
163046 at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2014) (Rader, J., concurring) (stating “[A]
system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system
does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468
(Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Consequently, for these reasons, and those set forth above with
respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
17.
With respect to dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-26, Appellants
argue these claims are patentable due to their dependency on their respective
independent or dependent claims. Appeal Brief 12-19. Thus, as we
sustained the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17, we also sustain the rejection of
claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-26, dependent therefrom. See Final Rejection 2-4.

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-26 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-008822
Application 11/364,752

8
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

gvw