Ex Parte Marzetta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 8, 2016

12652372 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/652,372 01/05/2010 Thomas L. Marzetta
46304 7590 07112/2016
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
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.
805147 1005
EXAMINER
KABIR, JAHANGIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2016 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):
nyoffice@rml-law.com
jbr@rml-law.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS L. MARZETT A and EMINA SOLJANIN1
Appeal2015-000831
Application 12/652,372
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-5, 10-16, 19, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application is related to signal processing, specifically providing
security for compressive sampling of sparse signals. Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent, which
wholly owns the assignee Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 The Examiner found claims 6-9, 17, and 18 allowable. Final Act. 9.
Appeal2015-000831
Application 12/652,372
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key
limitation emphasized:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a compressive sampling encoder, the encoder comprising:
matrix determination circuitry configured to determine a
particular sampling matrix selected from a codebook comprising
a plurality of sampling matrices;
sampling circuitry coupled to the matrix determination
circuitry and configured to apply the particular sampling matrix
to a first signal to generate a second signal, the second signal
being compressed relative to the first signal; and
encryption circuitry configured to receive an identifier of
the particular sampling matrix and to encrypt the identifier of the
particular sampling matrix;
the compressive sampling encoder providing at one or
more outputs thereof the second signal and the encrypted
identifier of the particular sampling matrix.
Rejection
Claims 1-5, 10-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being obvious over the combination of Tian et al. (US
2009/0196513 Al; Aug. 6, 2009) and Lee et al. (US 2010/0061477 Al; Mar.
11, 2010). Final Act. 6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tian and Lee
teaches or suggests "to encrypt the identifier of the particular sampling
matrix," as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in claims 10, 11,
12, 19, and 20?
2
Appeal2015-000831
Application 12/652,372
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 10--16, 19, and 20
Claim 1 requires circuitry to "encrypt the identifier of the particular
sampling matrix." The other independent claims (10, 11, 12, 19, and 20) all
similarly require an "identifier of [the] particular sampling matrix" be
"encrypt[ ed]."
The Examiner relies on Tian for teaching a "sampling matrix" and
relies on Lee for teaching that an identifier of a particular matrix is
encrypted. Final Act. 3. Appellants contend that although Lee teaches
encrypting certain data, the identifier (or "index") is not part of the data that
gets encrypted. Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 9.
We agree with Appellants. Both the Examiner and Appellants agree
Lee teaches encrypting "transmission data." Ans. 5 (citing Lee i-fi-1 49-51,
FIG. 5); Reply Br. 3. The Examiner further finds that Lee's index is
transmitted and therefore part of the "transmission data." See Ans. 5.
However, we agree with Appellants that "[t]he precoding matrix index is not
part of the transmission data in Lee." Reply Br. 3. Lee states:
The receiving terminal feeds back an optimal precoding matrix
index ( 1) to the transmitting terminal using channel information.
The transmitting terminal then applies a precoding matrix
corresponding to the feedback index (or an index which has been
fed back) to transmission data x1-XM(t).
Lee i1 49 (emphasis added). Thus, the index is applied to the transmission
data, meaning the index is separate from the transmission data. Moreover,
the index is sent from the receiving terminal, whereas the transmission data
is sent from the transmitting terminal. Thus, the index is not part of the
3
Appeal2015-000831
Application 12/652,372
transmission data in Lee, which means the index is not encrypted. We
therefore find the Examiner has not sufficiently shown the combination of
Tian and Lee teaches or suggests to "encrypt the identifier of the particular
sampling matrix," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
and claims 10, 11, 12, 19, and 20, which recite a substantially similar
limitation. Dependent claims 2-5 and 13-16 stand with their respective
independent claims.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-5, 10-16, 19, and 20.
REVERSED
4