Ex Parte Rooyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11237227 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/237,227 09/28/2005 Pieter van Rooyen 3875.0850000 6390
26111 7590 05/01/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ZHONG, JUN FEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PIETER VAN ROOYEN1
____________________

Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-30, all claims in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Broadcom Corporation. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for increasing
the capacity of DVB-H downlink communication channel. Spec. p. 1, ¶ [03]
(“FIELD OF THE INVENTION”).
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 8 are exemplary claims representing various
aspects of the invention which are reproduced below (emphases added):
1. A method for processing signals in a
communication system, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals for a plurality of channels via a digital
video broadcast (DVB) communication path; and
applying a plurality of channel weights to at least a
portion of said received plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals.

2. The method according to claim 1, comprising
receiving high definition television (HDTV) broadcast
information via said DVB communication path.

2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Dec. 2,
2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 28, 2010); Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 26, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed May 4,
2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sep. 28, 2005).
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

3
4. The method according to claim 2, comprising
receiving said HDTV broadcast information via a digital video
broadcast handheld (DVB-H) communication path.

8. The method according to claim 1, comprising
receiving said plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals for said plurality of channels via a
digital video broadcast handheld (DVB-H) communication
path.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Maltsev US 2005/0287978 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
“DVB-T Hierarchical Modulation”, Gledhill et al., March 2000.
DVB-H standard (ETSI EN 302 304 V1.1.1), Nov. 2004 (“ETSI”).
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19-21, 25-27, 29, and 30 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Maltsev. Ans. 4.
2. Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Maltsev and
Gledhill. Ans. 9.
3. Claims 4, 14, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Maltsev, Gledhill, and ETSI.
Ans. 10.
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

4
4. Claims 8, 18, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Maltsev and ETSI. Ans. 11.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions with respect to claims 1-30, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s arguments. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 2,
4, and 8 for emphasis as follows.
1. Rejection of Claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19-21, 25-27, and 29-30
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 7-14; Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Maltsev is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Maltsev anticipates
Appellant’s claimed method for processing signals in a
communication system by disclosing each limitation recited in
claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant contends “that Maltsev does not disclose or suggest at least
the limitation of ‘receiving a plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals for a plurality of channels’” (App. Br. 9), and “that
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

5
Maltsev does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘applying a
plurality of channel weights to at least a portion of said received plurality of
spatially multiplexed communication signals,’ as recited by . . . Appellant in
independent claim 1.” App. Br. 9-10.
Appellant further contends that Maltsev discloses multicarrier
transmitter 100 that, for each spatial stream or channel, generates symbol
modulated subcarriers 107 from spatial channel multiplexed bitstreams 105
(App. Br. 8 (citing Maltsev ¶ [0024])), and that multicarrier transmitter 100
and/or multicarrier receiver 200 may use wireless communication. App.
Br. 8 (citing Maltsev ¶ [0038]).
Appellant goes on to contend that, instead of disclosing the limitation
of “receiving a plurality of spatially multiplexed communication signals for
a plurality of channels,” as recited by independent claim 1, Maltsev discloses
generating symbol modulated subcarriers from spatial channel multiplexed
bitstreams, and that each spatial channel may be associated with a beam-
forming pattern. App. Br. 9.
In response to Appellant’s contentions, the Examiner finds that
Maltsev discloses multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) receiver 200 that
receives multiplexed signals from transmitter 100, and that Maltsev’s
receiver is suitable for receiving DVB signals, which discloses the limitation
“receiving a plurality of spatially multiplexed communication signals for a
plurality of channels via a digital video broadcast (DVB) communication
path.” Ans. 14 (citing Maltsev ¶¶ [0019], [0024], [0035], [0038], [0054];
Figs. 1 and 2). We agree with the Examiner, and disagree with Appellant
(Reply Br. 2-3) because the fact that these spatial channel multiplexed
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

6
bitstreams may contain symbol modulated subcarriers as argued by
Appellant (App. Br. 9) does not preclude them from being equivalent to the
recited plurality of spatially multiplexed communications signals.
Appellant also contends that Maltsev does not disclose the limitation
“applying a plurality of channel weights to at least a portion of said received
plurality of spatially multiplexed communication signals,” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 10. “Instead, Maltsev . . . discloses that when spatial
channels are substantially orthogonal, each spatial channel may be
associated with a beamforming pattern, rather than an antenna [and that
e]ach antenna may transmit signals with different weights which are specific
to the individual antenna.” Id. (citing Maltsev ¶ [0022]). Appellant further
contends that Maltsev discloses applying beamformer matrices calculated
from the channel transfer matrix and the quantized transmit beamformer
matrix to the received signals. Id. (citing Maltsev ¶ [0081]). “Appellant
further submits that applying a receiver beamforming matrix to the received
signals is not necessarily equivalent to ‘applying a plurality of channel
weights to at least a portion of said received plurality of spatially
multiplexed communication signals,’ as recited by Appellant in independent
claim 1.” App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added).
In response, the Examiner finds that Maltsev’s receiver beamforming
matrix, when applied to the received signals, meets the above-cited
limitation, because the beamforming matrix includes weights (multiplication
factors) to adjust the magnitude and phase of the received signal. Ans. 15-
16 (citing Maltsev Figs. 6 and 8 (step 810); ¶¶ [0048]-[0053], and [0068]-
[0082]). We agree with the Examiner’s characterization of Maltsev, and
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

7
point out that Appellant’s argument that applying a receiver beamforming
matrix (i.e., matrixed weighting factors) to the received signals is not
necessarily equivalent to applying channel weights to the signals is not
persuasive. For example, Appellant contends (Reply Br. 4) that removing
weights from received signals (by applying receiver beamforming matrices)
is not the same as “applying a plurality of channel weights to at least a
portion of said received plurality of spatially multiplexed communication
signals” because “[r]emoving is not applying.” Id. We disagree with
Appellant because the “removing” process of Maltsev (e.g., see Fig. 8, step
810) merely involves multiplication by the receiver’s channels weights, i.e.,
using the weighting factors in the receiver’s beamforming matrix to recover
the multiplexed signal.
Finally, Appellant contends that “it appears that independent claim 1
is also being rejected based on inherency . . . [i.e.,] it appears that the
Examiner is claiming that receiving a plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals for a plurality of channels via a digital video
broadcast (DVB) communication path and applying a plurality of channel
weights to at least a portion of said received plurality of spatially
multiplexed communication signals is inherently disclosed by Maltsev.”
App. Br. 12.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that his finding of inherency only
extends to the communication path, and not the entirety of the claim
recitation. Ans. 17. We agree with the Examiner (Id.) that wireless
communication between Maltsev’s transmitter 100 and receiver 200 using
the DVB standard (e.g., see Maltsev Figs. 1 and 2) necessarily requires a
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

8
communication path, such that the legal requirements for inherency cited by
Appellant (App. Br. 12-13) have been met.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any reversible error in
the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
independent claim 1. As Appellant has not provided separate arguments
with respect to independent claims 11 and 21 (App. Br. 13), we similarly
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 5-7, 9-10, 15-17, 19-20, 25-27, and 29-30, rejected on
the same basis as independent claims 1, 11, and 21, we find that the
Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments in the Answer by a
preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 18-21, and 24-25. Therefore, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate
herein by reference. Consequently, we have found no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 5-7, 9-10, 15-17, 19-20, 25-27, and 29-30.
2. Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23
Issue 2
Appellant argues (App. Br. 29-32; Reply Br. 8-9) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Maltsev and Gledhill is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed
method is rendered unpatentable by the combination of Maltsev
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

9
and Gledhill, particularly that the combination teaches, inter
alia, the step of “receiving high definition television (HDTV)
broadcast information via said DVB communication path,” as
recited in claim 2?
Analysis
Appellant contends that “[n]o reason is shown why one of ordinary
skill in the art would modify the Maltsev reference as the Office . . .
proposes [and n]o reason has been shown why one of ordinary skill would
combine these references to produce the recited combination, particularly in
view of Gledhill.” App. Br. 30 (citing FOA 11). In response, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Maltsev teaches a DVB-T communication path, and
that Gledhill teaches broadcasting high definition television over the DVB-T
path. Ans. 21; see Maltsev ¶ [0038]; and see Gledhill p. 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining Maltsev
with Gledhill, i.e., that “[s]killed artisans would recognize that it would have
been obvious to broadcast high definition television in Maltsev system, since
Maltsev’s system is capable to broadcast DVB-T signals, to provide better
quality videos and satisfy custom[er]s’ need[s].” Ans. 21.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any reversible error in
the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 2. As Appellant has not provided separate arguments with
respect to dependent claims 12 and 22, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

10
Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for patentability
of dependent claims 3, 13, and 23, rejected on the same basis as dependent
claim 2 (App. Br. 32-34), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each of
those arguments in the Answer by a preponderance of the evidence. Ans. 22
and 26. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which we incorporate herein by reference. Consequently, we
have found no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3,
12, 13, 22, and 23.
3. Rejection of Claims 4, 14, and 24
Issue 3
Appellant argues (App. Br. 34-38; Reply Br. 9) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Maltsev, Gledhill and ETSI is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed
method is rendered unpatentable by the combination of
Maltsev, Gledhill, and ETSI, particularly that the combination
teaches, inter alia, the step of “receiving said HDTV broadcast
information via a digital video broadcast handheld (DVB-H)
communication path,” as recited in claim 4?
Analysis
Appellant contends “that the combination of Maltsev, Gledhill and
ETSI does not disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘receiving said
HDTV broadcast information via a digital video broadcast handheld
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

11
(DVB-H) communication path,’ as recited by the Appellant in dependent
claim 4.” App. Br. 35.
Appellant also contends that:
[n]o reason is shown why one of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the Maltsev and Gledhill references as the Office action . . .
proposes . . . [n]o reason has been shown why one of ordinary skill
would combine these references to produce the recited combination,
particularly in view of ETSI.
App. Br. 36 (citing FOA 13).
In response, the Examiner finds that:
Maltsev discloses the DVB-T communication path and the
receiver could be part of a PDA, a laptop or a wireless headset
(handheld devices) (see paragraph 0038). Gledhill discloses
using DVB-T standard to broadcasting high definition
television (e.g., 720p). ETSI discloses that the DVB-H
standard was developed to transmit DVB-T data to portable
terminals. Skilled artisans would recognize that it would have
been obvious to broadcast high definition television in Maltsev
system using DVB-H standard to provide better quality videos
and increasing battery life for the handheld device at the same
time. Thus, [the] combination of Maltsev and Gledhill and
ETSI are [sic] appropriate.
Ans. 22-23.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions, and we agree with the
Examiner’s findings. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the
importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.”
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

12
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Instead, the
relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth “some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
The Supreme Court has stated, however, that “if a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In the present case, we agree with the Examiner
because the Examiner’s proposed combination for claim 4 applies the
teachings of Gledhill and ETSI in a manner that would produce predictable
results when used in the method of Maltsev. See Ans. 22-23.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any reversible error in
the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art, related claim construction,
or propriety in combining the art as applied. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4. As Appellant has
not provided separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 14 and 24,
we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
4. Rejection of Claims 8, 18, and 28
Issue 4
Appellant argues (App. Br. 38-41; Reply Br. 10) that the Examiner’s
unpatentability rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

13
combination of Maltsev and ETSI is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed
method is rendered unpatentable by the combination of Maltsev
and ETSI, particularly that the combination teaches, inter alia,
the step of “receiving said plurality of spatially multiplexed
communication signals for said plurality of channels via a
digital video broadcast handheld (DVB-H) communication
path,” as recited in claim 8?
Analysis
Appellant contends “the combination of Maltsev and ETSI does not
disclose or suggest at least the limitation of ‘receiving said plurality of
spatially multiplexed communication signals for said plurality of channels
via a digital video broadcast handheld (DVB-H) communication path,’ as
recited by the Appellant in dependent claim 8.” App. Br. 39.
Appellant further contends that:
[n]o reason is shown why one of ordinary skill in the art would
modify the Maltsev reference as the Office action . . . proposes . . .
[and n]o reason has been shown why one of ordinary skill would
combine these references to produce the recited combination,
particularly in view of ETSI.
App. Br. 40 (citing FOA 15).
In response, the Examiner finds that:
Maltsev discloses the DVB-T communication path and the
receiver could be part of a PDA, a laptop or a wireless headset
(handheld devices) (see paragraph 0038). ETSI discloses that
the DVB-H standard was developed to transmit DVB-T data to
portable terminals. Skilled artisans would recognize that it
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

14
would have been obvious to broadcast high definition television
in Maltsev system using DVB-H standard to provide better
quality videos and increasing battery life for the handheld
device (by using DVB-H standard) at the same time. Thus,
combination of Maltsev and ETSI are appropriate.
Ans. 23.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. We find that the Examiner
has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings sufficient to justify the
legal conclusion of obviousness we further agree with the Examiner’s
findings, and find that the Examiner’s proposed combination for claim 8
applies the teachings of ETSI in a manner that would produce predictable
results when used in the method of Maltsev.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of any reversible error in
the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim
construction or that the applied combination of references is improper.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 8. As Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 18 and 28, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9-11, 15-17, 19-21, 25-27, 29, and 30, and the
rejection is sustained.
Appeal 2010-009735
Application 11/237,227

15
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various
unpatentability rejections of claims 2-4, 8, 12-14, 18, 22-24, and 28, and the
rejections are sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-30 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) (2011).
AFFIRMED
tj