Ex Parte Luschi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12016629 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/016,629 01/18/2008
102469 7590
Hitt Gainess P,C,/Nvidia
P.O. Box 832570
Richardson, TX 75083
03/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carlo Luschi
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.
315668US 4665
EXAMINER
TIM ORY, KABIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
docket@hittgaines.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLO LUSCHI, SIMON WALKER, STEVE ALLPRESS, and
PHILIP JONES
Appeal2014-003845 1
Application 12/016,629
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-26. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Icera Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-003845
Application 12/016,629
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to optimizing the processing
facilities of a receiver in a wireless communication environment. Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis
added to the disputed element:
1. A radio receiver for a wireless communications system
compnsmg:
channel equalisation means arranged to receive samples
of an incoming signal and to generate an equalised output, said
channel equalisation means comprising means for processing
said digital samples in accordance with an equaliser algorithm
for implementing an equaliser receiver;
means for estimating parameters of a channel over which
the incoming signal has been transmitted and for comparing at
least one of said estimated parameters with a threshold;
a memory coupled to said processing means and holding
a plurality of equalizer algorithms; and
means for selecting from said plurality of equaliser
algorithms said equaliser algorithm downloadable from said
memory for execution by the processing means based on a
comparison of the at least one of said estimated parameters
within the threshold, wherein said equaliser algorithm employs
at least one equaliser parameter based on said at least one of
said estimated parameters and said channel equalisation means
employs both said equaliser algorithm and said at least one
equaliser parameter to generate said equalised output.
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 18-20, and 23-26 as
unpatentable over Yakhnich (US 7,050,513 Bl; issued May 23, 2006), in
2
Appeal2014-003845
Application 12/016,629
view ofDiFazio (US 2007/0076791 Al; published Apr. 5, 2007), and further
in view of Monsen (US 2006/0182193 Al; published Aug. 17, 2006).
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 11, and 21-22 as unpatentable over
Yakhnich, in view of DiFazio, in view of Monsen, and further in view of
Endres (US 2005/0018765 Al; published Jan. 27, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claim 14 as unpatentable over Yakhnich, in
view of DiFazio, in view of Monsen, and further in view of Sellars
(US 6,324,220 Bl; issued Nov. 27, 2001).
The Examiner rejects claim 15 as unpatentable over Yakhnich, in
view of DiFazio, in view of Monsen, and further in view of Giannakis
(US 2005/0135314 Al; published June 23, 2005).
The Examiner rejects claim 16 as unpatentable over Yakhnich, in
view ofDiFazio, in view of Monsen, in view of Endres, and further in view
of Sellars.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 as unpatentable over Yakhnich, in
view of DiFazio, in view of Monsen, in view of Giannakis, and further in
view of Endres.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination ofYakhnich, DiFazio, and
Monsen fails to teach or suggest "means for selecting from said plurality of
equaliser algorithms said equaliser algorithm downloadable from said
memory for execution by the processing means," as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 8-13; Reply Br 2---6. Specifically, Appellants argue that
Y akhnich' s channel estimate does not teach or suggest the claimed
"equaliser algorithm," because Y akhnich' s channel estimate is a value, and
an algorithm, even under the broadest reasonable interpretation, requires
3
Appeal2014-003845
Application 12/016,629
some sequence of steps and therefore does not encompass a value. Appeal
Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further argue that DiFazio's parameter
selection unit does not teach or suggest "selecting from said plurality of
equaliser algorithms said equaliser algorithm," because DiFazio's parameter
selection unit selects values rather than algorithms, and because DiFazio
does not teach selecting from different possibilities for algorithms. Appeal
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellants that the combination
of Yakhnich, DiFazio, and Monsen fails to teach or suggest the limitation in
question. 2
Regarding the claimed "equaliser algorithm," the Examiner finds that,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term "algorithm" includes
the updated channel estimate taught in Y akhnich. Ans. 3. We agree with
the Appellants that the Examiner's interpretation is not reasonable because
an algorithm, even given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a sequence
of steps. Reply Br. 2. Yakhnich' s updated channel estimate is a value
calculated by a channel estimation block, and, while an algorithm may use a
value, an algorithm is not a value. Thus, we agree that Yakhnich's channel
estimate does not teach or suggest the claimed "equaliser algorithm." 3
Regarding "selecting from said plurality of equaliser algorithms said
equaliser algorithm," the Examiner finds that DiFazio teaches a parameter
selection unit that selects inputs (i.e., channel estimate vectors and channel
monitor signals) for a Cholesky processor, further teaches that the channel
2 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3 We decline to reach the issue of whether other portions of Y akhnich teach
the claimed "equaliser algorithm," as it is unnecessary to reach this issue in
order to resolve the appeal.
4
Appeal2014-003845
Application 12/016,629
estimate vectors can be specified by a vector length L, where various
algorithms are used to determine L, and thus, teaches the selected inputs are
the claimed "equaliser algorithms." Ans. 8-9. However, we agree with
Appellants that channel estimate vectors and channel monitor signals are
values, not algorithms. Reply Br. 5---6. The Examiner also finds that
Appellants' argument regarding selecting from different possibilities for
algorithms is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Ans. 7. We
disagree. Instead, we agree with Appellants that the claim recites "selecting
from said plurality of equaliser algorithms," and thus, each algorithm from
the plurality of algorithms is a possible selection choice. Reply Br. 5
(emphasis added). Thus, we agree DiFazio's parameter selection unit does
not teach or suggest "selecting from said plurality of equaliser algorithms
said equaliser algorithm," as recited in claim 1. Given that the Examiner has
not cited either Y akhnich or Monsen as teaching the aforementioned
limitation, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Y akhnich,
DiFazio, and Monsen fails to teach or suggest such limitation. See Final
Act. 5-8; see also Ans. 2-12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain also the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 9 and 23-26, which recite substantially similar
limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 3-8 and 10-22 for the same
reason.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-26.
REVERSED
5