Ex Parte Lobinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2010

10204608 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREAS LOBINGER,
BERNHARD RAAF,
and RALF WIEDMANN
____________

Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 29, 2010
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 24-37 and 40-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

2

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to method and apparatus for adapting
data blocks to be supplied to a turbo coder. A turbo coder constitutes a
parallel circuit comprising two convolution coders and an interleaver
connected upstream of one of the convolution coders. Spec. 1: 25-30; Fig. 3
(prior art).

Representative Claim
24. A method for adapting data blocks to be supplied to a
turbo coder, the method comprising the steps of:
placing additional data bits in a sequence preceding a data block
to be supplied to the turbo coder for coding data bits of the data block;
and
adding the additional bits with a known value to the data block
which is to be supplied to the turbo coder for coding the data bits of
the data block, wherein the extended data block resulting therefrom
includes a minimum required number of bits for coding by the turbo
coder.

Prior Art
Rhodes 4,293,951 Oct. 6, 1981
Kim 6,437,714 B1 Aug. 20, 2002

Jungwoon Lee, et al., The Optimum Number of Inserted Known-Bits
in the Rate Matched Turbo Codes with Known Bits, TENCON ’99, Proc.
IEEE Region 10 Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 12-14 (1999) (“Lee”).

Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

3
Examiner’s Rejections/Claim Status
Claims 24, 26-29, and 40-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lee and Rhodes.
Claims 25 and 30-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Rhodes, and Kim.
Claims 1-23 have been canceled.
Claims 38, 39, and 44-47 have been withdrawn from consideration as
being directed to a non-elected invention.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Lee
Lee describes rate matched turbo codes in which bits that are known
by the encoder and the decoder are inserted in known positions between data
before encoding. The inserted bits are deleted before transmitting. The
deleted bits are inserted again before decoding. Page 12, § I.

Rhodes
Rhodes teaches that in conventional convolutional encoding a digital
data bit stream of finite length is encoded in Periodic Convolutional Code
Block (PCCB) format. However, because the convolutional coding and
decoding works best when the digital data stream is of infinite duration or
length, dummy bits are supplied at the beginning and/or the end of the finite-
length bit stream. Col. 1, l. 8 - col. 2, l. 36.

Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966).
The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner applies the teachings of Lee and Rhodes to demonstrate
the prima facie obviousness of the method of claim 24. Appellants seem to
misapprehend or mischaracterize the rejection. As the Examiner makes
plain (e.g., Ans. 15), the rejection is not based on combining the turbo coder
of Lee with Rhodes’ improvement on the prior art (the Rhodes invention).
The rejection refers to Rhodes as evidence that the ordinarily skilled artisan
knew that dummy bits could be placed in a sequence preceding a finite-
length bit stream. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what
the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which
they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all
they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In
re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to “no motivation to combine”
because of the disparate systems taught by the references are thus not
persuasive. The arguments rely on Rhodes’ description of a process for
Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

5
eliminating the dummy bits required in conventional convolutional
encoding. See, e.g.., Rhodes col. 2, ll. 65-68; col. 3, ll. 1-5. In Rhodes’
invention, information bits are re-circulated, obviating the surplus bits of the
prior art. Col. 5, ll. 42-60. Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the
more general teachings of Rhodes that constitute a basis for the rejection.
Further, to the extent that Appellants argue that the references “teach
away” from the claimed invention, dummy (additional known) bits are a
requirement in the rate-matched turbo codes described by Lee. Rhodes
teaches a way to eliminate dummy bits (col. 5, l. 1 et seq.), but makes clear
that the improvement is directed to certain prior art applications of
convolutional encoding and decoding (col. 2, ll. 30-62). Rhodes also teaches
that a known position for placing additional data bits in a sequence was
preceding a data block (col. 2, ll. 22-24), consistent with instant claim 24.
We are also not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that
turbo coding is a type of convolutional coding, even though convolutional
coding predates turbo coding, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
thus consider Rhodes’ teachings as applicable to the turbo coding described
by Lee. As shown in the Specification’s description of the prior art (e.g.,
Spec. 2:7 - 3:12; Fig. 3), a turbo coder comprises convolution coders 3, 4.
Moreover, Appellants’ Specification also acknowledges that each data
block supplied to a turbo coder must have a corresponding minimum size,
with an established standard of 40 bits. Spec. 1: 25 - 2: 5. Appellants allege
disadvantages in filling out data blocks with dummy bits at the end (id. at 3:
24-29) and advantages in filling out data blocks with dummy bits at the
beginning (id. at 6: 23-30). However, the Specification does not show or
even appear to allege that the disadvantages of “subsequent” placement were
Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

6
unknown to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention, nor that
the purported advantages of “preceding” placement would be unexpected or
surprising to that artisan.
Lee provides an example block size of 640 bits for a turbo coder,
which includes slightly more than 60 additional bits inserted for minimal bit
error rate. Page 14, Fig. 3. In view of the teachings of Lee and Rhodes, it
would have been prima facie obvious to place additional bits when required
at the end of a data block to fill the block, but equally obvious to place the
bits at the beginning of the data block as recited in claim 24. Appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief to the effect that Lee adds tail bits to fill a data
block are inapposite, as the tail bits are added after turbo encoding, rather
than prior to the encoding. See Lee Fig. 1.
We are thus not convinced that placing additional data bits in a
sequence “preceding” a data block to be supplied to the turbo coder as
broadly claimed would have been non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to
what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
We therefore sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 24. Claims 25-37
and 40-43, none of which are separately argued, fall with claim 24. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 24, 26-29, and 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lee and Rhodes is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 25 and 30-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Rhodes, and Kim is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-011724
Application 10/204,608

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

KING & SPALDING LLP
401 CONGRESS AVENUE
SUITE 3200
AUSTIN TX 78701