Ex Parte Myung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

14046209 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 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.
14/046,209 10/04/2013 Seho MYUNG 0201-0903 1242
02/16/201768103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
KERVEROS, DEMETRIOS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEHO MYUNG, HYUN-KOO YANG and SUNG-HEE HWANG
Appeal 2016-003045
Application 14/046,209
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 12. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-003045
Application 14/046,209
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for decoding received
packets in a broadcasting and communication system. See Abstract. Claim
1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for decoding received packets in a
broadcasting and communication system, the method
comprising:
reconstructing a source block having a width of a given
symbol size by arranging source packets received from a sender;
determining a number of erased encoding symbol units
corresponding to at least one source packet which is not
successfully received in the source block;
determining a decoding unit for Forward Error Correction
(FEC) decoding based on the number of erased encoding symbol
units; and
performing FEC decoding on the reconstructed source
block based on the determined decoding unit.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Tash (US 6,732,325 Bl; issued May 4, 2004).
Final Action 4—6.1
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 11,
2015, Reply Brief filed January 14, 2016, Final Action mailed March 31,
2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 27, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-003045
Application 14/046,209
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 7.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 7 is in error as Tash does not teach the claimed step of determining a
decoding unit for Forward Error Correction decoding based on the number
of erased encoding symbol units as claimed. App. Br. 4—5 and Reply Br. 2—
3.
The Examiner finds that Tash teaches determining the error
magnitude based upon erasure locations and that the magnitude is used to
calculate the corrected code word. Answer 2—3. This response by the
Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, that Tash teaches “determining a
decoding unit. . . based upon the number of erased symbols units” as recited
in claim 1 and similarly in claim 7. According, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 or the claims which
depend upon them.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 is
reversed.
REVERSED
3