Ex parte Prater et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2002

08648849 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte JAMES S. PRATER and KEVIN G. CHRISTIAN
________________
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before URYNOWICZ, DIXON, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative
Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-
11, 13-17, 19, 24 and 25. Claims 20-23 are allowed.
The invention pertains to data processing apparatus.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-2–
1. An apparatus for processing data signals
comprising:
a first filter means for adjusting an input signal
received by the first filter means;
a summing means for summing signals from the first
filter means and from a second filter means to produce a
summed signal;
a symbol detection means for generating an output
signal from the summed signal;
the second filter means for adjusting the output
signal; and
a control means for controlling filtering properties
of the first filter means and the second filter means, wherein
the control means controls filtering properties of the first
filter means based on previous data patterns in the input
signal received by first filter means.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Fisher et al. (Fisher) 5,132,988 Jul. 21, 1992
Kim 5,654,765 Aug. 05, 1997
(filed Nov. 18, 1994)
Claim 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fisher.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 24 and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kim.
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellants with regard to the propriety of these rejections
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-3–
are set forth in the final rejection and the examiner’s answer
(Paper Nos. 8 and 15, respectively) and the appellants’ brief
and reply brief (Paper Nos. 13 and 16, respectively).
Appellants’ Invention
A summary of the invention is provided at page 7 of
the brief.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 19
We will not sustain this rejection.
Appellants argue that when data is filtered, Fisher
provides no teaching or suggestion to select a set of
coefficients from a plurality of sets of coefficients based on
previous data patterns transmitted through the equalizer.
We agree. With respect to Figure 2 of Fisher, which is
relied on by the examiner, it is clear that filter unit 36
receives equalizer coefficients W for decreasing data error
rates of data output signals from memory. However, Fisher has
not been shown by the examiner to involve the selection of a
set of coefficients from a plurality of sets of coefficients.
The examiner relied on Fisher’s specification at column 7,
lines 10-16 and 34-44, to meet the claim language “selecting a
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-4–
set of coefficients within the number of sets of
coefficients…” but there is nothing in these portions of the
specification disclosing a number of sets of coefficients or
selecting a set of coefficients within the number of sets of
coefficients.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 24
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11; we will
not sustain the rejection of claim 24.
Kim relates to a channel equalizer for a digital
television receiver. With respect to Figures 4 and 6, Kim
teaches using an error signal mk from error detector 8 to
adjust a coefficient for a channel and then stores the
coefficient. The coefficient is then used when the channel is
selected.
Appellants argue that updating a coefficient using an
error signal and the selection of a coefficient based on a
channel is not the same as controlling filtering properties
based on previous data patterns (claim 1) or controlling
filter units based on digital data output from a symbol
detector compared to data patterns output by the symbol
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-5–
detector in response to data signals previously received
(claim 11).
We are not persuaded by these arguments. With respect to
Kim’s Figures 4 and 6, the coefficients in Kim memory 13 are
from data patterns output by slicer (symbol detector) 7. The
coefficients correspond to all channels of a digital TV
receiver (column 5, lines 34-36). As such, each coefficient
of a channel must be a function of the particular
characteristics of a channel in order to correct for those
characteristics and would be determined utilizing previous
data patterns. This is supported by Kim’s disclosure at
column 1, lines 6-14, wherein it is disclosed that “… a
filtering coefficient converging on an optimum value is
obtained for a firstly selected channel when an input signal
of the firstly selected channel is filtered, the obtained
filtering coefficient is stored and the stored filtering
coefficient is used as an initial coefficient for filtering
the input signal when the firstly selected channel is again
selected” (emphasis added). A separate coefficient is
obtained for each channel 2-n in this manner.
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-6–
A further teaching that coefficients in memory 13 are
from previous data patterns is to be found at column 5, lines
41-65. There, Kim discloses that coefficients stored at 13b-
13n are derived by utilizing the coefficient from initial
coefficient location 13a “… as an initial filtering value when
a certain channel is firstly selected and then obtains a
filtering coefficient converging on the corresponding channel
according to the inputted coefficient.” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, with respect to claim 1, Kim Figure 6
teaches a control means 8, 9, 9a and 11 for controlling
filtering properties of first filter means 4 and second filter
means 6, wherein the control means 8, 9, 9a and 11 controls
filtering properties of the first filter means 4 based on
previous data patterns in the input signal received by the
first filter means (the input signal underlined, above). With
respect to claim 11, Kim Figure 6 teaches selection logic unit
8, 9, 9a and 11 connected to first finite impulse response
filter unit 4 and second finite impulse response filter unit
6, wherein the selection logic unit controls the first finite
impulse response
filter unit 4 and the second finite impulse response filter 6
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-7–

-based on digital data 1k output from the symbol detector 7
compared to data patterns output by the symbol detector in
response to the data signals previously received by the
decision feedback equalizer (the data patterns of the input
signal and the channel selection underlined above).
Whereas claims 2, 3 and 5-10 depend from claim 1 and are
not separately argued, we will sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims.
Whereas claims 13-17 depend from claim 11 and are not
separately argued, we will sustain the rejection of these
dependent claims.
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 24, and claim
25 which depends therefrom, because there is no disclosure in
Kim of a plurality of sets of coefficients or control means
for selecting a set of coefficients. Kim only teaches a set
of coefficients in memory 13 of Figure 4.
Summary
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claim 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Fisher is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-8–
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-
11, 13-17, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated
by Kim is affirmed as to claims 1-3, 5-11 and 13-17, and is
reversed as to claims 24 and 25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 2000-0720
Application No. 08/648,849
-9–
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SU/RWK
LSI LOGIC CORPORATION
1551 MCCARTHY BLVD. MS D-206
PATENT LAW DEPT.
MILPITAS, CA 95035