Ex Parte Lobo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 19, 2010

10432669 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NATIVIDADE ALBERT LOBO
_____________

Appeal 2009-003478
Application 10/432,669
Technology Center 2600

____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003478
Application 10/432,669

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-29, 31-40, 43-46, and 58-61. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to testing a signal
processing component suitable for a device operating in a spread spectrum
system by correlating a comparison output signal with a modified output
signal wherein the modification is attributable to the signal processing
operation performed by the device under test. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method of testing a signal processing component suitable for a device
operating in a spread spectrum system in accordance with a predetermined
modulation scheme, the method comprising;
providing an input signal to a component under test in isolation;
generating a comparison output signal modulated in accordance with
the predetermined modulation scheme from the input signal;
generating a modified output signal modulated in accordance with the
predetermined modulation scheme and modified such that the difference
between the modified output signal and the comparison output signal is
attributable to the signal processing operation performed by the component
under test;
correlating the modulated modified output signal operated on by the
component under test with the modulated comparison output signal; and
providing a measure of the degradation on the signal of the
component under test.
Appeal 2009-003478
Application 10/432,669

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Valentine US 5,748,678 May 5, 1998
Tapio US 6,741,663 B1 May 25, 2004
(filed April 28, 1999)

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-29, 31-40, 43-46, and 58-61 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Valentine in view of Tapio.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err by determining that Valentine in view of Tapio
teaches measuring the degradation of a signal of a component under test that
is in isolation as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues (App. Br. 4, 6) that the Examiner’s reliance on
Valentine’s training period, wherein normal operation does not take place,
for the proposition that the components are “‘isolated from normal
communication signals’” is unsupported. Appellant asserts that, contrary to
the Examiner’s assertion, Valentine indicates that the normal modulation
scheme is used during training of the transmitter and that necessary signaling
data can be transmitted during the training period (col. 4, ll. 65-67). (App.
Br. 6). We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appeal 2009-003478
Application 10/432,669

4
The Examiner has not provided any evidence, nor can we find support
from the record before us, that during the training period the components are
isolated from normal operation. We also agree with Appellant that Valentine
teaches the opposite (i.e., necessary signaling data can be transmitted during
the training period avoiding wasted transmission period).
For the above reasons, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and for reasons similar to that articulated supra the rejections of
claims 2-29, 31-40, 43-46, and 58-61.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred by determining that Valentine in view of Tapio
teaches measuring the degradation of a signal of a component under test that
is in isolation.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-29, 31-40, 43-46, and
58-61 is reversed.
Appeal 2009-003478
Application 10/432,669

5
REVERSED

ELD

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000