Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

11459661 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SIOU-SHEN LIN, WEN-CHANG CHANG, and
HAO-YUN CHIN
____________________

Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,6611
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed July 25, 2006 claiming benefit of U.S. 60/745,860 filed
April 28, 2006. The real party in interest is Mediatek Inc. (Br. 2.)

Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 13-18, 20, 30-37, and 39. Claims 1-12 and
21-29 have been canceled. The Examiner indicates claims 19 and 38 include
allowable subject matter. (Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns teletext decoding and, in
particular, a teletext data slicer and method for comparing an input signal
with a first threshold level to generate a first bitstream and comparing the
input signal with a second threshold level to generate a second
bitstream. (Spec., ¶¶ [0001], [0002]; Abstract.)2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 13, reproduced below, with disputed limitations
italicized, further illustrates the invention:
13. A data slicer, slicing an input signal, comprising:
a comparator comparing the input signal with a first
threshold level to generate a first bitstream, and comparing the
input signal with a second threshold level to generate a second
bitstream, where each bit of the first and second bitstream is
one of two possible states; and
a data check module, evaluating whether the first and
second bitstream are erroneous according to an error checking

2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal Brief (“Br.”)
filed January 26, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed February 11, 2011.
Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

3

code thereof, and outputting one of the bitstreams based on the
evaluation result.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects 13-18, 20, 30-37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,317,489 B2, issued Jan. 8, 2008 (filed Jan.
9, 2004) (“Thaly”).

ISSUES
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
1. Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
AAPA and Thaly collectively would have taught or suggested “a comparator
comparing the input signal with a first threshold level to generate a first
bitstream, and comparing the input signal with a second threshold level to
generate a second bitstream” (claim 13) within the meaning of independent
claim 13 and the commensurate limitation of claim 30?
2. Does the Examiner properly combine AAPA and Thaly?

Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office
Action mailed September 20, 2010 as our own.

ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 4-12), we select
independent claim 13 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and
groupings with respect to claims 13-18, 20, 30-37, and 39. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Although Appellants present nominal separate arguments
with respect to independent claim 30, these arguments merely reiterate the
arguments made with respect to claim 13.
The § 103 Rejection of Claim 13
Appellants contend that AAPA and Thally do not teach or suggest the
emphasized (supra) features of claim 13, in particular, two thresholds used
for error correction (i.e., resulting in two data streams (bitstreams)). (Br. 4-
6.) Specifically, Appellants contend that, with respect to AAPA, “the slicer
14 compares the television signal Sin with single one threshold level Sth to
generate one teletext data Ds” and “Thaly discloses only one threshold value
to be compared with the sum values.” (Br. 5.) Such that “neither AAPA nor
Thaly discloses there are two threshold values used to be compared with the
input signal for error detection and correction.” (Id.) Appellants further
contend that the Examiner’s rationale for combining AAPA and Thaly “is
both incomplete and improper” (Br. 8) in that “the Office Action has failed
to at least (1) ascertain the differences between and prior art and the claims
in issue; and (2) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art” (Br. 10).
Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

5

The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of the obviousness
rejection in the Examiner’s Answer with respect to each of the claims (Ans.
3-9) and, in particular, the rejection of claim 13 (Ans. 3-4, 6-9).
Specifically, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with respect to
Thaly’s disclosure of a high and low slice level threshold (two threshold
levels) (Ans. 4, 6-7 (citing Thaly, col. 5, l. 54 to col. 6, l. 16; col. 6, ll. 17-30;
Fig. 6)). The Examiner further explains that:
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to modify AAP A which discloses the
slicing/detection of teletext data by ensuring that any bits that
are in error are corrected as done by Thaly, where the
comparator would generate the error signal stream and data
correction module would invert such error bit(s)
(Ans. 4; see Ans. 9.) We adopt these findings and this reasoning as our own.
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s findings that AAPA and Thaly would have
taught or suggested the disputed features of claim 13. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. (Ans. 3-9.) We limit
our additional analysis to the following points of emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (and find) that Thaly describes two
threshold values as well as correcting error bits (i.e., the comparisons
creating two data streams). See Ans. 7 comparing Thaly’s Figure 6 to
Appellants’ Figure 6a; Thaly, col. 5, l. 54 to col. 6, l. 30.
With respect to Appellants’ combinability arguments, the Examiner
provides a rationale for combining the references (supra) – i.e., to improve
performance and efficiency of the teletext processing system. Therefore, the
Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

6

Examiner has stated “some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness,” KSR, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)), and Appellants have not shown error
therein.
We further conclude that it would have been well within the skill of
one skilled in the art to combine such known techniques, i.e., to combine a
comparison to two threshold levels as taught by Thaly with the well known
prior art technique of a single comparison in a teletext processing system as
disclosed in AAPA. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”
(citations omitted)).
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 13, independent
claim 30 which includes limitations of commensurate scope, or dependent
claims 14-18, 20, 31-37, and 39 which depend thereon and were not
separately argued with particularity (Br. 6, 8). Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-18, 20, 30-37, and 39.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
13-18, 20, 30-37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2011-008799
Application 11/459,661

7

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13-18, 20, 30-37, and
39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

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

tkl