Ex Parte Paviot

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2010

10180404 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte OLIVIER PAVIOT
____________

Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 31, 2010
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a radio station including a receiver
which receives data transmitted in symbols from a plurality of paths through
delay circuits and produces information from the delay circuits (Spec. 1:1-
4).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
1. A radio station comprising:

a receiver for receiving data transmitted in symbols along a
plurality of paths, the receiver comprising:

a plurality of delay circuits for receiving and storing a plurality
of symbols coming from each of the plurality of paths; and

a processing circuit determining a symbol which is found
predominate among the plurality of symbols stored in the plurality of
delay circuits, independent of the order of the predominate symbol in
the delay circuits, wherein said predominate symbol is determined by
a majority decision of the symbols in the plurality of delay circuit, at a
known period of time.

The prior art applied in rejecting the claims on appeal is:
Takakusaki EP 0 851 600 A2 Jul. 1, 1998

Ishioka, Improved Throughput Characteristics by ARQ with Weighted
Majority Decision, Nov. 6-10, 1995, IEEE International Conference on
Universal Personal Communications, pp. 467 – 471.

Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takakusaki and Ishioka.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs and the
Answer for their respective details. Only those arguments actually made by
Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

3
Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C § 103(a), does the combination of Takakusaki and
Ishioka render the claimed invention unpatentable by teaching or suggesting
the recited determining a symbol which is found predominant by a majority
decision of the symbols?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the
“improvement” is technology-independent and the combination of
references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for
example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter,
smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to
enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process
is universal . . . there exists in these situations a motivation to combine
prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the
references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is
whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering
him capable of combining the prior art references.

Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

4
Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
Appellant specifically contends that Takakusaki does not describe any
manner of determining a predominant symbol and is merely directed to
temporal re-alignment of symbols (App. Br. 5-6). Additionally, Appellant
argues that the majority decision techniques disclosed in Ishioka relate to
using weighted averages based on relative signal strength, and are not
applicable to temporal re-alignment of symbols (App. Br. 6). Appellant
concludes that the Examiner’s reliance on the proposed combination to
reject claims 1-9 is improper because using the weighted averaging of
Ishioka would not lead to symbol selection in Takakusaki (App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 3).
The Examiner responds that Takakusaki discloses receiving data
transmitted in symbols along a plurality of paths, while Ishioka recognizes
the benefits of improved throughput and addresses the problem of high error
rate in symbol detection (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner further points out that
Ishioka was relied on merely to disclose using a majority decision for
improving error rate, while the temporal alignment is disclosed by
Takakusaki (Ans. 10-11). The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Ishioka to use a
majority decision technique in symbol detection of Takakusaki in order to
improve detection error rate (Ans. 11).
After reviewing Takakusaki and Ishioka, we find ourselves in
agreement with the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining the
Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

5
references. In that regard, Takakusaki clearly teaches adjusting the delays of
symbol signals using shift registers and synthesizing and combining symbol
signals by a RAKE combining circuit (col. 8, ll. 46-53). As shown in Figure
3, Takakusaki provides shift registers 171 to 173 for adjusting the delay time
(col. 8, l. 54 – col. 9, l. 20). Ishioka, on the other hand, recognizes that using
error detection schemes employing majority decision improves ARQ
throughput in data transmission (Section I. INTRODUCTION, p. 467).
Ishioka uses data weighted by the received signal strength in combination
with diversity reception for the disclosed majority decision (id.; Section 2.2
Proposed Error Correction Scheme).
We also agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9) that adding the majority
decision scheme of Ishioka to the receiver disclosed in Takakusaki would
have improved symbol detection by reducing the detection error rate. As
pointed out by the Examiner (id.), the aligned signals at the point between
the delay buffer output and the Rake combining circuit of Takakusaki would
further benefit from using the majority decision of Ishioka in selecting the
data symbols with less error and improved throughput. Therefore, contrary
to Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3) that Takakusaki is
directed to temporal re-alignment, not symbol selection, the outputs from the
delay circuits are selected to be combined together by the RAKE combining
circuits (Abstract).
Additionally, we remain unconvinced by Appellant’s arguments
against combinability of the references since relying on the KSR standard,
the evidence provided by the Examiner supports a finding that using the
majority decision scheme of Ishioka in the receiver of Takakusaki would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The proposed
Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

6
combination provides an obvious solution to symbol selection for improving
throughput and reduction of error rate with predictable results.
In addressing whether a motivation to combine is disclosed to one of
ordinary skill in the art by either Takakusaki or Ishioka (Reply Br. 3), we
note that the combination is not about using majority decision in symbol
selection by Ishioka, but takes into account the concept of an error correction
scheme that improves ARQ throughput in a receiver. Here, according to
KSR, Ishioka does provide an obvious solution to a known problem. As
such, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to add to the
receiver of Takakusaki the known option related to the majority decision
scheme of Ishioka as a predictable improvement. Therefore, in view of our
analysis above, we find that the teachings of Takakusaki and Ishioka, when
considered as a whole, support the Examiner’s § 103 ground of rejection.

CONCLUSION
Because the combination of Takakusaki and Ishioka renders the
claimed invention unpatentable by teaching or suggesting the recited
determining a symbol which is found predominant by a majority decision of
the symbols, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-9.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-9 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2009-004821
Application 10/180,404

7

ke

HOGAN & HARTSON LLP
ONE TABOR CENTER, SUITE 1500
1200 SEVENTEENTH ST
DENVER, CO 80202