Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13215815 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/215,815 08/23/2011
57299 7590 09/22/2016
Kathy Manke
A vago Technologies Limited
4380 Ziegler Road
Fort Collins, CO 80525
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jingfeng Liu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Ll0-0639US1 2948
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LINH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2845
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
kathy.manke@broadcom.com
patent.info@broadcom.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINGFENG LIU, NAY AK RATNAKAR ARA VIND,
HONGWEI SONG, and HAOTIAN ZHANG
Appeal2015-004169
Application 13/215,815
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify LSI Corporation as the real party in interest. (Br. 3.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Aug. 23, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Apr. 28, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed Sept. 27, 2014 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed Dec. 18,
2014 ("Ans.").
Appeal2015-004169
Application 13/215,815
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an improved read channel that uses an
oversampled analog to digital conversion. (Spec. 1: 14--15.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for processing a signal m a read channel,
compnsmg:
obtaining an analog input signal;
performing an oversampled analog to digital conversion
on said analog input signal to generate a plurality of digital
samples for a given bit interval; and
applying said plurality of digital samples for a given bit
interval to a corresponding plurality of data detectors that
perform a data detection algorithm on the plurality of digital
samples to obtain a combined detected data output.
(Br. 15 - Claims App 'x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Aziz et al. (US 7 ,411,531 B2; issued Aug. 12, 2008) and Inukai et
al. (US 2008/0291069 Al; published Nov. 27, 2008). (Final Act. 3-7.)
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Aziz, Inukai, and Kikugawa et al. (US 2009/0136219 Al; May 28, 2009).
(Final Act. 7-8.)
2
Appeal2015-004169
Application 13/215,815
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 20
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding Aziz teaches a ''plurality of
data detectors that . .. obtain a combined detected data output"?
Appellants did not challenge the Examiner's factual findings about
Inukai, and thus we take those findings as being conceded by Appellants.
Appellants contend Aziz makes a distinction between data detectors (370)
and phase detectors (375), thus the Examiner cannot redefine Aziz's phase
detectors to be the claimed "data detectors." (Br. 10-11.) Appellants further
argue the output from Aziz's data detectors (370) is not combined, but is
applied to phase detectors (375) to generate multiple estimates of timing
error, which are then combined into a single phase adjustment estimate. (Br.
11-12.) Appellants contend this combined timing estimate, which is
processed through a loop filter and phase adjustment block, is not a
"combined detected data output." (Id.)
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error in the
rejection. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the independent claims do
not require any specific type of data with respect to the data detectors or the
combined detected data output. (Ans. 4--5.) Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with Appellants' disclosure, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Aziz's phase detectors (375) perform data detection
of timing error data to obtain a combined detected data output at filter (380).
(Id. (citing Aziz col. 4:46-51); see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367
3
Appeal2015-004169
Application 13/215,815
F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): "[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.")3
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding Aziz teaches ''perform[ing] a
data detection algorithm on the plurality of digital samples"?
Appellants contend Aziz does not teach a "data detection algorithm,"
which is a well-known term of art and can be embodied as a Viterbi
algorithm. (Br. 12-13.) Appellants argue that Aziz's phase detectors
process binary data, which is no longer a digital sample, thus any processing
done by the phase detectors is not done on digital samples as required by the
claims. (Id.)
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. Appellants'
contention that Aziz does not teach a Viterbi algorithm is not commensurate
with the scope of the claims, which do not require any specific data
detection algorithm. See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(stating that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). As attorney argument alone is not evidence, Appellants have
offered no persuasive evidence that "data detection algorithm" has a specific
meaning in the art. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that Aziz teaches the phase detectors (i.e., data
detectors as discussed supra) performing a timing estimate data algorithm on
3 We note the independent claims do not specify when or how the detected
data is combined. Thus, Aziz's data detectors (370), which have a detected
data output that is combined after the phase detection step, also read on the
claimed "data detectors."
4
Appeal2015-004169
Application 13/215,815
the binary data, which a skilled artisan would recognize as digital data (i.e.,
0 or 1 ). (Ans. 5---6 (citing Aziz col. 6: 18-22 and col. 6:50 - col. 7: 10).)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Aziz and Inukai.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for remaining dependent claims
2-10 and 12-19. (See Br. 13-14.) Thus, for reasons stated with respect to
independent claims 1 and 11, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of the
dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv);
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner;s decision to reject claims 1-'20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5