Ex Parte Lee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 2003

09115996 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2003)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MYEONG-HWAN LEE
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0477
Application 09/115,996
__________
HEARD: FEBRUARY 20, 2003
__________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6. After submission of the brief, the examiner objected
to claims 3 and 6 (answer, pages 2 and 7). Accordingly,
claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 remain before us on appeal.
Appeal No. 2002-0477
Application No. 09/115,996

2
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for removing co-channel interference in a simulcast receiver for
receiving a high definition television (HDTV) signal having a
digital format and an analog broadcasting TV signal by detecting
either a synchronous signal or a reference signal from the analog
broadcasting TV signal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A co-channel interference canceler in a simulcast
receiver for receiving a high definition television (HDTV) signal
having a digital format and an analog broadcasting TV signal,
comprising:
a detector for detecting a synchronous signal from said
analog broadcasting TV signal, determining whether or not the
analog TV signal is received based on whether or not the
synchronous signal is detected, and outputting a detection signal
indicating whether or not the analog TV signal is received;
a co-channel interference rejection filter for removing co-
channel interference from a first input signal including co-
channel interference and outputting a second input signal; and
a selector for selecting either the first or second input
signal according to said detection signal.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Citta et al. (Citta) 5,821,988 Oct. 13, 1998
(filed Dec. 19, 1995)
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Citta.
Appeal No. 2002-0477
Application No. 09/115,996

3
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 12 and 14)
and the answer (paper number 13) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have considered the entire record before us, and we will
reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5.
All of the claims on appeal require the detecting of a
synchronous signal or a reference signal from the analog
broadcasting TV signal. According to the examiner (answer,
pages 3 through 7), the items 38 and 40 in Figure 1 of Citta
detect a synchronous signal or a reference signal from the NTSC
picture carrier signal. Appellant argues (brief, pages 7 through
9; reply brief, pages 4 through 7) that the NTSC picture carrier
signal is neither a synchronous signal nor a reference signal of
the analog broadcasting signal. We agree. Although Citta
provides a “circuit for determining when an NTSC co-channel
interference reduction filter [20] may be advantageously
incorporated in the signal path of an HDTV receiver” (column 1,
lines 49 through 52), Citta uses a comparison between NTSC power
(i.e., the output from power averaging circuit 38) and white
noise (i.e., the output from white noise power averaging circuit
52) to determine when the co-channel interference filter 20
Appeal No. 2002-0477
Application No. 09/115,996

1 Citta states (column 2, lines 42 through 45) that fixed
reference components of the received signal are nulled out.
4
should be placed in the signal path of the HDTV receiver
(column 2, lines 29 through 52; column 3, lines 15 through 23).
The examiner’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, the
record on appeal lacks an evidentiary link between NTSC
power/white noise and the claimed synchronous signal and
reference1 signal.
In view of the foregoing, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 2002-0477
Application No. 09/115,996

5
SUGHRUE, MION, ZINN, MacPEAK & SEAS
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037-3203