Ex parte O'Brien

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 1999

08412260 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 1999)

Application for patent filed March 28, 1995. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FRANCIS J. O’BRIEN Jr.
____________
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,2601
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 7
and 10. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 7), claim
10 was amended. As a result of the amendment, the examiner
withdrew the indefiniteness rejection of claim 10 (paper
number 8). Thus, claims 1 and 7 remain before us on appeal,
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
2
and claims 2 through 6 and 8 through 12 are objected to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of
the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The disclosed invention relates to a signal processing
system and method.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A signal processing system comprising:
transducer means for receiving an analog signal, the
analog signal including a noise
component and possibly also an
information component, and generating in
response a digital signal;
a noise likelihood determination sub-system for
receiving said digital signal and for generating a
random noise assessment that the digital signal
comprises solely random noise,; and
an information processing sub-system for receiving
said
digital signal and for processing it to extract
said information component if the noise
likelihood determination subsystem determines
that the random noise assessment indicates that
the digital signal does not comprise solely
random noise.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
3
Norman 4,063,180 Dec. 13,
1977
Claims 1 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Norman.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 7 is sustained.
The examiner’s grounds of rejection (Answer, page 4)are
as follows:
Norman discloses an information processing
subsystem (data processing channel 34); a noise
likelihood determination subsystem (delay pulse &
command generator and noise detector 18,22) for
receiving signal and for generating an inhabit [sic,
inhibit] signal (random noise assessment) to
indicate that the pulse (signal) is noise and to
inhabit [sic, inhibit] a data processing channel
from processing the pulse (signal) as claimed in
claim 1 (see fig. 1, the abstract and column 3, line
65 to column 4, line 2). Regarding the particular
limitation i.e. the A/D converter (transducer), such
limitation is well known in the art of
communications and would have been obvious lacking
any criticality or showing by applicant.
In response to appellant’s arguments that the “Norman
patent merely distinguishes between different types of pulses,
in particular, a start pulse and a noise pulse, not between
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
4
data and noise” (Brief, page 5), and that the Norman patent
does not generate a random noise assessment that the digital
signal comprises “solely random noise” (Brief, page 6), the
examiner states (Answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
In response to the first argument, the start
pulse is part of the data. “Each train of pulse[s]
typically includes a start pulse [12] followed by a
series of data pulses [14]” (column 2, lines 31-
37)[.] Thus, the comparison is between the data and
the noise.
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
5
In response to the second argument, see for
example the abstract lines, 16-20 and column 3, line
65 to column 4, line 2. It clearly states that a
signal (an inhahit [sic, inhibit] signal) is
generated to indicate that the incoming signal is
solely noise and that the data processing channel is
inhibited from processing the signal. The only
pulses which will be accepted for processing are
those which have been first identified by the
initial start pulse. Furthermore, even though
Norman is silent whether the noise is a random noise
or not, it is clear from the drawing the noise is
not a continues [sic, continuous] noise. Therefore
it is a random noise. Thus, the noise assessment
(an inhabit [sic, inhibit] signal) that is generated
by the noise detection circuit is to indicate that
the detected signal is solely random noise.
Norman shows (Figure 2A) that the start pulse 12 is part
of the input data pulses, and he specifically states (column
1, lines 54 through 58) that the “circuit . . receives data
characters, each of which begins with a start pulse,” and that
the “circuit receives . . . trains of data pulses, each train
including a start pulse” (column 1, lines 63 through 67).
Thus, the examiner correctly concluded that the start pulse is
part of the data in Norman, and that Norman distinguishes
between data and noise.
Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 7) that Norman “does
not suggest making the noise assessment while receiving a data
stream” is directly refuted by Figure 2 of Norman’s drawing.
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
6
We agree with the examiner that the noise signal in
Norman (Figure 2E) is a “random” noise pulse. Appellant’s
arguments (Brief, pages 6 and 7) to the contrary
notwithstanding, the claims on appeal do not preclude Norman’s
method of making a random noise determination.
Appellant’s argument (Brief, page 7) that “the system
described in the Norman patent does not enable an information
processing sub-system to operate if a random noise assessment
indicates that the digital signal does not comprise solely
random noise” is in error because Norman’s system is only
inhibited if a noise pulse is detected.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, Jr. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jrg
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
8
Office of Counsel Bldg. 112T
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Division Newport
Newport, RI 02841-1708
JENINE GILLIS

Appeal No. 97-2757

Serial No. 08/412,260
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge URYNOWICZ

Judge BARRETT
Received: 12/21/98
Typed: 12/21/98

DECISION: AFFIRMED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 2734
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___
Appeal No. 97-2757
Application No. 08/412,260
10