Ex Parte Oren

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

11887109 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111887, 109 10/27/2008
56639 7590 12/24/2015
EITAN, MEHULAL AND SADOT
10 Abba Eban Blvd. PO Box 2081
Herzliya, 4612002
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Roy Oren
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.
P-9114-US 1858
EXAMINER
KIM, KEVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/24/2015 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):
pusdkt@ems-legal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY OREN
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887,109
Technology Center 2600
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 3 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-31.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant's invention is directed to orthogonal frequency division
multiplexing. Spec. i-f 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of operating an Orthogonal Frequency-
Division Multiplexing (OFDM) receiver, comprising:
a) generating one or more control signals based on a
measured characteristic of a previously received signal
including at least part of an OFDM symbol; and
b) applying said one or more control signals to a tuner
section of said receiver during a cyclic prefix period to adjust
one or more parameters of said tuner section from the group of
parameters consisting of: DC correction level and I/Q error.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Tsujishita et al.
Keevill et al.
V assiliou et al.
US 6,341,123 Bl
US 6,359,938 Bl
Jan 22, 2002
Mar. 19,2002
US 2004/0106380 Al June 3, 2004
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed Dec. 27, 2012), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 29,
2013), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 16, 2012).
2
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Tsujishita, Keevill, and Vassiliou. Final Act. 2--4.
ISSUES
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6,
8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Tsujishita, Keevill, and Vassiliou turns on whether (a) Vassiliou
teaches a DC correction signal applied to the tuner section of an Orthogonal
Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) receiver; (b) Vassiliou teaches
generating a DC correction or I/Q error signal based on a received OFDM
signal; and ( c) Keevill or Vassiliou teaches away from applying a control
signal during a cyclic prefix period.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Vassiliou fails to teach a DC correction signal
applied to the tuner section of an OFDM receiver. App. Br. 7-8, 12-13.
Appellant contends that Vassiliou instead teaches digital calibration of a
demodulated signal, which is not analogous to a DC correction signal
applied to a tuner section because tuners and demodulators are distinctly
different and perform different functions within a receiver. Id. at 7-8, 13
(citing Vassiliou i-f 45, Fig. 2).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. The Examiner finds
that Vassiliou's OFDM receiver comprises a mixer (demodulator) that tunes
a received input signal when it is mixed with a synthesized local signal.
Ans. 2 (citing Vassiliou i-f 45, Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds Vassiliou
applies a DC correction signal to the output of the mixer. Id. As such, under
3
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
the broadest reasonable interpretation of "tuner section," Vassiliou' s mixer
(demodulator) is the same as the claimed tuner section. Although Appellant
argues that demodulators and tuners perform different functions, Appellant
has not provided evidence to show error in the Examiner's interpretation that
a tuner section can include a demodulator of the type described in Vassiliou.
App. Br. 8, 13.
Appellant also argues that V assiliou fails to teach generating a DC
correction or I/Q error signal based on received OFDM symbols because
Vassiliou's generated signal is not based on a previously received OFDM
signal, but rather is a calibration signal that is internally generated during a
power-up or initiation process. App. Br. 8, 14 (citing Vassiliou i-fi-f 119--
120).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive because it fails to
rebut the specific findings of the Examiner. See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that V assiliou teaches generating a DC
control signal during tracking cycles for real-time correction of the mixer
output, which is a received OFDM symbol. Ans. 2 (citing Vassiliou i154).
Appellant further argues that Keevill teaches away from applying the
control signal during a cyclic prefix period. App. Br. 9, 15. Appellant
argues that Keevill' s use of the term "guard interval" does not show that the
control signal limitation is taught in the context of the present claims or that
Keevill is in the same field of endeavor, and that the reference teaches away
from applying control signals during a cyclic prefix period because the
reference instead teaches timing of control signals to process/correct a signal
that is being received without any consideration for the timing of application
4
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
of the control signals to a tuner section. App. Br. 9 (citing Keevill, 34:9--
12).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. A reference that
teaches away from the claimed invention must "criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant does not point to any disclosure in the
references-and we do not find any such disclosure---criticizing,
discrediting, or discouraging the inclusion of applying control signals during
a cyclic prefix period in a tuner section. We agree with the Examiner that
Keevill teaches the application of control signals during a cyclic prefix cycle
in the demodulation section of a demodulator. Ans. 3; see Keevill, Fig. 3,
34:9--12. A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general
preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the
ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Keevil does not teach away from applying a control signal
during a cyclic prefix period in the tuner section of an OFDM receiver
because Keevill merely discloses applying the control signal during a cyclic
prefix period to an alternative location within the receiver.
Appellant also argues that Vassiliou teaches away from applying the
control signal during a cyclic prefix period. App. Br. 9, 15. Appellant
contends that Vassiliou teaches the use of ongoing adjustment and
calibration during normal operation of the system and possibly during an
interframe period, which is not a cyclic prefix period, and lasts longer than a
cyclic prefix period. Id. at 9 (citing Vassiliou i-f 103). Additionally,
Appellant argues that Vassiliou does not refer to or suggest the cyclic prefix
5
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
period; therefore, Vassiliou never contemplated the use of the cyclic prefix
period as a basis for control signal timing and should not be modified to
include the application of control signals during a cyclic prefix period. Id. at
9-10.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Again, Appellant
does not point to any disclosure in the references-and we do not find any
such disclosure---criticizing, discrediting, or discouraging the inclusion of
applying control signals during a cyclic prefix period in a tuner section.
Furthermore, we find that Vassiliou's use of ongoing adjustment and
calibration at times other than during a cyclic prefix period merely serves as
an alternative manner of applying control signals.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 12, and 22, and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, 11-21,
23, 25, 26, and 28-31 that are not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16,
18-23, 25, 26, and 28-31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Tsujishita, Keevill, and Vassiliou.
DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows: the rejection of claims 1, 3,
5, 6, 8-13, 15, 16, 18-23, 25, 26, and 28-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tsujishita, Keevill, and Vassiliou is affirmed.
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).
6
Appeal2013-008505
Application 11/887, 109
mp
AFFIRMED
7