Ex Parte Luschi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2016

12016652 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/016,652 01/18/2008 Carlo Luschi
27964 7590 06/08/2016
PARKER JUSTISS, P,C
P.O. BOX 832570
RICHARDSON, TX 75083
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.
316024US 4705
EXAMINER
TIM ORY, KABIR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2016 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@pj-iplaw.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
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-3 and 5-19. Claim 4 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method of processing digital samples of a signal
received at a receiver via a channel in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising
monitoring channel conditions and generating a channel
indicator comprising at least one channel parameter by
performing at least one of:
(a) estimating a channel parameter indicative of a
degree of mobility of the channel, and comparing that
estimate with at least one mobility threshold;
(b) estimating a channel parameter indicative of an
energy of the channel outside a predefined temporal
window, and comparing that estimate with at least one
out-of-window energy threshold;
( c) estimating a channel parameter indicative of at
least one of a temporal duration of a channel response
and channel length and channel delay distribution, and
establishing if the estimated temporal duration or channel
length or delay distribution meets predetermined criteria;
( d) estimating a channel parameter indicating a
location of channel zeros in a z-plane, and establishing if
the location of the channel zeros meets predetermined
criteria;
( e) estimating a channel parameter indicative of a
signal-to-disturbance power ratio of the received signal
and comparing the estimated signal-to-disturbance ratio
with at least one signal-to-disturbance ratio threshold;
2
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
(f) estimating a channel parameter indicative of the
signal-to-disturbance power ratio of an estimated channel
response;
(g) estimating a channel parameter indicative of a
degree of non-stationarity of disturbance at the receiver
input;
the method further comprising the following steps
implemented by a processor at the receiver:
selecting a processing routine, from a
plurality of processing routines stored in a memory
at the receiver, for processing the received digital
samples at the receiver based on said channel
indicator, the selecting comprising downloading a
selected code sequence from the memory for
implementing the selected processing routine by
the same processor executing the selected code
sequence, wherein the plurality of processing
routines comprise processing functions that
include a processing function for implementing a
rake receiver and a processing function for
implementing an equalisation receiver; and
after selecting the processing routine,
processing the received digital samples at the
receiver in accordance with the selected processing
routine, wherein each selected routine is
implemented on the same processor.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-16, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofKadous
3
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
(US 2003/0095508 Al; May 22, 2003) and Jayaraman
(US 2003/0087622 Al; May 8, 2003). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 17-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofKadous,
Jayaraman, and Mergen (US 2007/0110201 Al; May 17, 2007). 2
3. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Kadous, Jayaraman, Mergen, and
DiFazio (US 2007/0076791 Al; Apr. 5, 2007). 3
Appellants ' Contentions4
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Pending independent Claim 1 recites "after selecting the
processing routine, processing the received digital samples." ...
[T]he Office Action recognizes that Kadous does not teach "after
selecting the processing routine, processing the received digital
samples" and cites elements 242, 252, 260, and 260 of Fig. 2 of
Jayaraman to teach this feature. Fig. 4 of Jayaraman gives a
detailed view of elements 242 and 252 of Fig. 2. Fig. 4 clearly
shows the received digital samples are filtered (by filters 41 Oa-
41 Od) and then processed simultaneously by adaptive equalizer
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-3, 5-8, 11-16, and 19.
See Appeal Br. 11-14. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2 The rejection of claims 9 and 17-18 turns on our decision as to the
underlying § 103 rejection of claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision,
these claims are not discussed further herein.
3 The rejection of claim 10 turns on our decision as to the underlying § 103
rejection of claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, this claim is not
discussed further herein.
4 The contentions outlined here are determinative as to the rejections on
appeal. Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
4
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
420 and rake receiver 430. Selector 432 then selects one of the
data streams from the adaptive equalizer 420 and rake receiver
430. Thus, Fig. 4 of Jayaraman teaches that the digital samples
are processed before selecting a processing routine. Fig. 4 of
Jayaraman does not teach processing the digital samples after
selecting a processing routine as pending independent Claim 1
requires.
Appeal Br. 8, emphasis added.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Pending independent Claim 1 recites "selecting a
processing routine ... for processing the received digital
samples ... based on said channel indicator."
However, the ACI detector 244 of Fig. 2 of Jayaraman does not
select a processing routine, nor does it decide which of the
adaptive equalizer 420 or rake receiver 430 of digital
demodulator 252(a) is used. First, as noted above, adaptive
1• All"'\f\ 1 1 • Al,....f\ • 1 1• •, 1 equanzer <+LU ana raKe receiver Lf.jU process rece1vea mgna1
samples simultaneously. There is no selection of a "processing
routine." Further, even if selector 432 of Fig. 4 of Jayaraman
were prior to adaptive equalizer 420 and rake receiver 430, the
demodulator select signal applied to selector 432 is NOT from
ACI detector 244. Instead, the demodulator selector 432 is
controlled by controller 260. (See, e.g., paragraph [0074] of
Jayaraman.)
Thus, ACI detector 244 does not select a routine. Instead,
ACI detector 244 selects which filter (410a-410d) of selectable
filter 242 is used for processing the received digital samples.
As such, Jayaraman does not teach selecting a
processing routine based on the channel indicator (ACI
detector 244) as pending independent Claim 1 requires.
Appeal Br. 10-11, emphasis added.
5
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
Issue on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being
unpatentable?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that Jayaraman teaches a
receiver unit that processes filtered digital samples received from a
selectable filter before selecting a processing routine, rather than after
selecting a processing routine, because J ayaraman discloses that the filtered
digital samples are processed in parallel by an adaptive equalizer and a rake
receiver, and, subsequently, a selector selects one of the data streams output
from either the adaptive equalizer or the rake receiver. Appeal Br. 8; see
also Jayaraman i-fi-171-74; Fig. 4. Further, the Examiner has not established
that any of the other cited references (i.e., Kadous, Mergen, or DiFazio) cure
Jayaraman's deficiencies.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we are also persuaded that the
Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants that Jayaraman does not teach
that the receiver unit selects either the adaptive equalizer or the rake receiver
based on a filter select control provided by an adjacent channel interference
("ACI") detector. Appeal Br. 10-11. Instead, Jayaraman teaches that the
receiver unit selects one of the filters of a selectable filter based on the filter
select control, and that the receiver unit selects either the adaptive equalizer
6
Appeal2014-009954
Application 12/016,652
or the rake receiver based on a demodulator select control provided by a
controller. Jayaraman i-fi-166, 74. Further, the Examiner has not established
that Jayaraman teaches a correlation between the filter select control
provided by the ACI detector and the demodulator select control provided by
the controller. The Examiner has also not established that any of the other
cited references (i.e., Kadous, Mergen, or DiFazio) cure Jayaraman's
deficiencies.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3 and 5-19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1-3 and 5-19 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-19.
REVERSED
7