Ex Parte Maes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2017

14003035 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/003,035 09/11/2013 Jochen Maes 29250A-000127/US/NP 3508
30594 7590 02/10/2017
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
EL-ZOOBI, MARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2656
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2017 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOCHEN MAES, MICHAEL TIMMERS, and
MAMOUN GUENACH
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,0351
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN,
and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—11, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method for performing spectrum management
in a digital subscriber line (DSL) connecting the central office of an Internet
provider (140) to the premises of a subscriber (110) by ensuring that
transmitters in an access link and a local area link contained in the DSL path
are operating at their optimum channel capacity. Spec. 2:2-4, 22—25. In
particular, upon detecting interference in the DSL path, a first and second
desired spectral configurations are determined for a first transmitter and a
second transmitter operating respectively at the access link (140—160) and
local area link (120-123). Transmitters in the links are adjusted to reduce
the interference level as a way to maximize the throughput of their
respective channel capacities. Id. at 7—20.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for performing spectrum management in view
of a predetermined constraint in a network comprising an access
link of a Digital Subscriber Line and a local area link of a home
network, said access link and said local area link being
interferingly coupled, said method comprising:
- quantifying interference between said access link and
said local area link;
- determining a first desired spectral configuration for a
first transmitter operating over said access link; and
- determining a second desired spectral configuration for a
second transmitter operating over said local area link;
wherein said determining of said first desired spectral
configuration and said determining of said second desired
spectral configuration are performed such that the respective
2
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
achievable channel capacities of said access link and said local
area link meet said predetermined constraint.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Papandriopoulos et al. US 2007/0274404 Nov. 29, 2007
(“Papandriopoulos”)
Ginis EP 2,259,456 Al Dec. 8,2010
Eckley IV (“Eckley) US 2012/0014277 Al Jan. 19, 2012
Power Line Telecommunications (PLT); Study on signal processing
improving the coexistence of VDSL2 and PTL, VI. 1.1 (2010-09)
(“PLT Study”)
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5—7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Papandriopoulos and PLT
Study. Fin. Act. 3—6.
Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Papandriopoulos, PLT Study, and
Ginis. Fin. Act. 6—7.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Papandriopoulos, PLT Study, Ginis,
and Eckley. Fin. Act. 7—8.
3
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 5—10, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—9.2
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue the proposed
combination of Papandriopoulos and PLT Study does not teach or suggest
“determining a first desired spectral configuration for a first transmitter
operating over said access link” and “determining a second desired spectral
configuration for a second transmitter operating over said local area link”
“such that the respective achievable channel capacities of said access link
and said local area link meet said predetermined constraint.” App. Br. 6. In
particular, Appellants argue PLT Study teaches “determining a carrier
frequency with an associated spectral power density that does not exceed a
threshold value for the VSDL signal,” “determining a carrier frequency for
the PLT signal,” and “reducing the power and number of bits assigned to the
PLT signal, in order to provide enough bandwidth for the VDSL signal,
without making adjustment to the VDSL signal.” Id. at 8 (citing PLT Study
section 5.6). According to Appellants, PLT Study does not teach a joint
optimization of the spectral configuration between an access link and a local
area link. Instead, PLT Study teaches adjusting the PLT signal only, and not
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 23, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
February 22, 2016), and the Answer (mailed February 2, 2016) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
4
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
the VDSL signal, which is provided as a given. Id. This argument is not
persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, the claim does not require
performing a joint optimization of the spectral configuration between the
local area link and the access link. Ans. 8. Instead, the claim merely
requires determining the first and the second spectral configurations are
performed such that respective achievable channel capacities of the access
link and the local area link meet a predetermined constraint. As further
correctly noted by the Examiner, PLT Study’s disclosure that the PLT
carrier and the VDSL carrier overlap or are separated by a distance smaller
than a predetermined maximum distance teaches the disputed limitations.
Id. (citing PLT Study section 5.6). Notably, in section 5.6, PLT Study
discloses a spectral management method to reduce interference between a
PLT signal and a VDSL signal, wherein the latter signal is transmitted over a
phone line located near a power line transmitting a power (PLT) signal,
first, PLT Study discloses determining a first carrier frequency (VDSL
frequency) of a frequency plan for the transmission such that the spectral
power density thereof exceeds a predetermined threshold. Second, PLT
Study discloses determining a second carrier frequency (PLT frequency) of
another frequency plan for signal transmission on powerline, which is shared
with the VDSL frequency. Third, PLT Study discloses reducing power in
the PLT signal. Accordingly, the PLT carrier and the VDSL2 carrier
overlap or are separated by a distance smaller than a predetermined
maximum distance. Consequently, PLT Study teaches adjusting the VDSL
signal such that the power spectrum thereof exceeds the predetermined
threshold or meets a predetermined constraint, further, PLT Study teaches
5
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
adjusting the PLT signal by reducing the power thereof to reduce its
interference with the VDSL signal. Additionally, PLT Study’s disclosure of
an overlap between the carrier of the PLT signal and the VDSL signal
ensues directly from the adjustment of the power densities of the two signals
to prevent interference therebetween. Therefore, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Papandriopoulos and PLT
Study teaches the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3, Appellants argue the combination
of Papandriopoulos and PLT Study does not teach or suggest maximizing
the lesser one of the respective channel capacities of the access link and the
local area link. App. Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive. As noted in
our discussion above, because PLT Study teaches maximizing the channel
capacities of the VDSL signal, PLT Study teaches maximizing at least the
lesser channel capacity between the two signals. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2 and 4—11, because Appellants
reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claims 1 and 4 above, the cited claims fall therewith. See 37
C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal 2016-003725
Application 14/003,035
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1—11.
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
7