Ex Parte Odoni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12109166 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/109,166 04/24/2008
38106 7590 09/26/2016
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING)
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
Marco Odoni
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.
2110-289-03 2911
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
Patentlnfo@SeedIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCO ODONI and ARNALDO SP AL VIERI
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10, 12, 14, and 16-21, which are all the claims pending in this
application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is STMicroelectronics
S.r.l. (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 11, 13, and 15 have been canceled.
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a system involving multi-level coded
modulation arrangement applied to a spatial multiplexing Multiple-Input
Multiple-Output (MIMO) Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
(OFDM) (see Spec. i-f 2).
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method of detecting sequences of multi-level
encoded symbols, said multi-level encoded symbols mapped and
modulated with a modulation scheme having a number of
constellation points identified by a sequence of bits, wherein said
bits identifying a constellation points are arranged in at least a
first and a second group, said first group encoded with a first
encoding scheme, and said second group encoded with a second
coding scheme, said multi-level encoded symbols transmitted by
multiple transmitting sources and received by multiple receiving
elements, wherein said multiple transmitting sources and said
multiple receiving elements jointly define a transmission channel
modeled by a channel state information matrix and said received
symbols are grouped as a received vector,
wherein the detection method includes:
selecting a first set of candidate sequences as a
function of said constellation points of said modulation
scheme and said received symbols,
calculating a first set of probability information for
said first set of candidate sequences,
decoding said first group of bits of said symbols
encoded with a first encoding scheme as a function of said
first set of probability information,
re-encoding said decoded first group of bits of said
symbols,
selecting a sub-set of constellation points as a
function of said re-encoded first group of bits,
2
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
selecting a second set of said candidate sequences
as a function of said sub-set of constellation points and
said received symbols,
calculating a second set of probability information
for said second set of candidate sequences, and
decoding said second group of bits of said symbols
encoded with a second encoding scheme as a function of
said second set of probability information.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 14, 16-18, 20, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mantravadi (US
2005/0068918 Al; Mar. 31, 2005) and Heegard (US 6,160,854; Dec. 12,
2000) (see Final Act. 7-21) and further added Tong (US 2004/0066866 Al;
Apr. 8, 2004) to reject claims 4, 5, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see
Final Act. 21-23).3
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Mantravadi as disclosing
the recited method steps except for the step of "selecting a second set of said
candidate sequences as a function of said sub-set of constellation points" and
"as a function of said re-encoded first group of bits," for which the Examiner
relies on Heegard (Final Act. 7-11 ). The Examiner further finds it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Mantravadi with Heegard in order to "increase overall
efficiency of the coding scheme" (Final Act. 11 ).
3 The Examiner indicates "Claim 21 has been amended to overcome the 3 5
U.S.C. 101 rejection ... rejection is hereby withdrawn" (Adv. Act. 2).
3
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
Appellants contend the cited portion of Heegard relates to "a trellis
decoding scheme wherein there is no paring down of initially received
symbols into selected subsets" (App. Br. 25 (citing col. 1, 11. 27--44; col. 5,
11. 33--41) ). Appellants argue the group of second sequence discussed in
Heegard, which are "globally referred to as C2 are a 8-bit parallel encoded
data stream" (id.). Additionally, Appellants argue the combination of
Mantravadi and Heegard is based on hindsight reasoning because there is no
teaching "as to why a skilled artisan would look to a parallel data encoding
solution of Heegard et al. to solve a single data stream throughput problem
as defined by the specification" (App. Br. 26).
In response, the Examiner, however, explains that Mantravadi teaches
"selecting a sub-set of constellation points as a function of said re-encoded
first group of bits (Ans. 5 (citing Mantravadi Fig. 9A (950a), i-fi-1260-262,
105) ), whereas Heegard discloses "selecting sequence of second modulated
signal ( c2 - second set of candidate sequence) based on interleaved and
encoded first sequence of decoded to determined multilevel coded symbol"
(Ans. 6 (citing Heegard Figs. 3, 4, 6; col. 1. LL 27--44, col. 5, 11. 33--41)).
The Examiner further finds the combination of Mantravadi and Heegard
teaches separately "selecting a second set of said candidate sequences as a
function of said sub-set of constellation points" and "as a function of said re-
encoded first group of bits," (Ans. 6-7). Because the Examiner cited
Heegard only as disclosing the selection of a sequence of second modulated
signal, Appellants' argument that Heegard does not also teach selecting a
sub-set of constellation points as a function of re-encoded first group of bits
is unpersuasive. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
4
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.") and In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332-33
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981))
("[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.").
The Examiner forther provided sufficient reasoning for the proposed
combination, which consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), relates to enhancing
the detection of constellation points using two separate data streams (see
Ans. 8). In KSR, the Supreme Court also qualified the issue of hindsight by
stating that "[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to
common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor
consistent with it." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Consequently, we are satisfied
that the portions of Mantravadi and Heegard relied upon in the record before
us disclose nothing other than prior art elements that perform their ordinary
fonctions to predictably result in an overall efficiency of coding scheme.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, as well as claims 2-10, 12, and 14, which are not argued
separately (see App. Br. 27).
Remaining Claims
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16-21
as obvious over Mantravadi, Heegard, based on the same arguments
presented for claim 1, which are discussed above (see App. Br. 28--44). We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants are again
attacking an individual reference, whereas the rejection was based on the
5
Appeal2013-000079
Application 12/109, 166
teachings of a combination of references. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of the remaining claims.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10, 12, 14,
and 16-21.
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
6