Ex Parte Sarraf et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2010

10636161 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/636,161 08/07/2003 Mohsen Sarraf 34-20 3605
7590 12/21/2010
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
Suite 205
1300 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06824
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, PHUONGCHAU BA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MOHSEN SARRAF and
MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN ZARRABIZADEH
____________________

Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,1611
Technology Center 2400

____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Lucent Technologies Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns a hybrid in-band on-channel (HIBOC)
digital audio broadcasting (DAB) system. A plurality of audio streams are
divided into four digital sub-streams. Each sub-stream is assigned a unique
frequency band and a unique time slot relative to the other sub-streams
(Spec. 2). A first core sub-stream is mapped to one frequency partition and a
second core sub-stream is mapped to another frequency partition and
delayed relative to the first core sub-stream. Two enhancement sub-streams
are mapped to different frequency partitions and are time delayed relative to
each other and to the core sub-streams (Id.).
Claims 1 and 10 are exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of transmitting a plurality of sub-streams in a multi-stream
digital audio broadcasting system, said method comprising the steps of:
allocating a unique frequency partition to each of said sub-streams for
a plurality of consecutive time slots;
allocating a unique time slot to each of said plurality of sub-streams;
and
transmitting said sub-streams to a receiver.

10. A transmitter in a multi-stream digital audio broadcasting system,
comprising:
a modulator for allocating a unique frequency partition to each of two
or more sub-streams for a plurality of consecutive time slots;
a delay circuit for allocating a unique time slot to each of said two or
more sub-streams; and

3 Claims 6 and 15 stand objected to as being dependent on a rejected base
claim, but were indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form.
2
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

a transmitter for transmitting said two or more sub-streams to a
receiver.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Sinha US 6,292,917 B1 Sep. 18, 2001
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Sinha.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed March 13, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July
18, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 7, 2008) for their
respective details.

ISSUE
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Sinha does not teach allocating a
unique frequency partition to each of the sub-streams for a plurality of
consecutive time slots and allocating a unique time slot to each of the
plurality of sub-streams (App. Br. 3).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Does Sinha teach a method of transmitting a plurality of sub-streams
in a multi-stream digital audio broadcasting system, including allocating a
unique frequency partition to each of said sub-streams for a plurality of
consecutive time slots and allocating a unique time slot to each of said
plurality of sub-streams?
3
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sinha
1. Sinha discloses that “[a]lthough illustrated at least in part using
frequency bands as channels, the invention may also be applied to many
other types of channels, such as, for example, time slots, code division
multiple access (CDMA) slots, and virtual connections in asynchronous
transfer mode (ATM) or other packet-based transmission systems” (col. 4, ll.
2-7).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 10 are the independent claims pending in this appeal.
Claim 1 recites a method of transmitting a plurality of sub-streams in a
multi-stream digital audio broadcasting system, including “allocating a
unique frequency partition to each of said sub-streams for a plurality of
consecutive time slots,” and “allocating a unique time slot to each of said
plurality of sub-streams.” Claim 10 is directed to a transmitter in a multi-
stream digital audio broadcasting system, comprising “a modulator for
allocating a unique frequency partition to each of two or more sub-streams
4
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

for a plurality of consecutive time slots” and “a delay circuit for allocating a
unique time slot” to each of the sub-streams. Figure 4 is illustrative of the
claimed concepts:

Figure 4 illustrates the time and frequency diversity of the core and
enhancement sub-streams of an audio signal, in accordance with the present
invention.

We agree with Appellants’ argument, summarized supra, that Sinha
does not teach both allocating a unique frequency partition to each sub-
stream and allocating a unique time slot to each sub-stream, as the
independent claims require.
The Examiner finds that Sinha teaches allocating unique time slots
(Ans. 6, 12). Sinha discloses that “[a]lthough illustrated at least in part using
frequency bands as channels, the invention may also be applied to many
other types of channels, such as, for example, time slots, code division
multiple access (CDMA) slots, and virtual connections in asynchronous
transfer mode (ATM) or other packet-based transmission systems” (FF 1).
5
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

While we agree with the Examiner that Sinha teaches broadcasting separate
channels in different frequency bands or different time slots, Sinha contains
no teaching of a multi-stream transmission system that exhibits both time
and frequency diversity, as Appellants disclose and claim.
Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us that Sinha fails to teach all
the features of independent claims 1 and 10. Appellants have thus
established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18
under §102(e) as being anticipated by Sinha, and we will not sustain the
rejections.

CONCLUSION
Sinha does not teach a method of transmitting a plurality of sub-
streams in a multi-stream digital audio broadcasting system, including
allocating a unique frequency partition to each of said sub-streams for a
plurality of consecutive time slots and allocating a unique time slot to each
of said plurality of sub-streams.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18 is reversed.

6
Appeal 2009-006598
Application 10/636,161

REVERSED

ELD

RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
SUITE 205
1300 POST ROAD
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
7