Ex Parte Schmidt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

11316129 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111316,129
43471 7590
ARRIS Group, Inc.
3871 Lakefield Drive
Suwanee, GA 30024
12/22/2005
03/01/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mark S. Schmidt
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.
MOTO/BCS03884 1721
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
arris. docketing@ arrisi. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKS. SCHMIDT and GERALD R. JOYCE
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 5, 6, and 10. Claims 2--4, 7-9, and 11-20 were
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention encodes a data stream for transmission across
bonded channels. Specifically, the stream's packets are coded to produce a
symbol stream that is formatted to produce trellis groups that are formed into
blocks and processed. See generally Abstract; i-fi-1 16-24. Claim 6 is
illustrative:
6. Apparatus for encoding a protocol data unit (PDU)
stream, comprising:
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
an outer code module for outer coding packets of the
PDU stream to produce a symbol stream, wherein the outer
code module comprises:
a block coder for block coding the packets of the
PDU stream to block coded symbols,
an interleaver for interleaving the block coded
symbols to produce interleaved data, and
a sync preamble inserter for inserting sync
preambles in the interleaved data, wherein the sync
preamble indicates a type of interleaving, and
a randomizer for randomizing the interleaved data
to produce the symbol stream;
a data formatter for formatting the symbol stream to
produce trellis groups;
block forming logic for forming the trellis groups into
blocks of MxN groups, wherein the MxN block includes N sets
of M trellis groups; and
N trellis encoders/QAM mappers configured to process,
for each of the blocks, M groups to produce N trellis encoder
outputs and to map each of the N trellis encoder outputs onto a
quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellation to
generate N QAM symbol streams,
N modulators configured to modulate the N QAM
symbols streams onto N radio frequency (RF) carriers; and
transmitting the N modulated RF carriers over N bonded
channels.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Digital Multi-Programme Systems for Television Sound
and Data Services for Cable Distribution, Int'l Telecomm. Union, ITU-T
Recommendation J.83 (Oct. 1995) ("ITU"), Wei (US 5,243,629; Sept. 7,
2
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
1993), and Kolakowski (US 2007/0076708 Al; Apr. 5, 2007). Final Act. 4-
8.1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that ITU discloses every recited element of claim
6 except for, among other things, (1) block forming logic for forming trellis
groups into blocks ofMxN groups, where the MxN block includes N sets of
M trellis groups, and (2) transmitting the recited N modulated RF carriers
over N bonded channels. Final Act. 4-7; Ans. 4-5, 7. The Examiner,
however, cites Wei for teaching these features, and also cites Kolakowski for
teaching a sync preamble indicating an interleaving type. Final Act. 5-7. In
light of these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim
would have been obvious. Final Act. 4-7; Ans. 4-5, 7.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest ( 1)
forming trellis groups into blocks of MxN groups, where the MxN block
includes N sets of M trellis groups, and (2) transmitting the modulated RF
carriers over N bonded channels, as claimed. Br. 10-12. According to
Appellants, the number of bits representing each class of information in Wei
includes an average of m(i) bits and is, therefore, variable. Br. 10-11. As
such, Appellants contend, even if Wei's information classes are analogous to
the recited N sets of trellis groups, Wei does not teach that each class
includes M trellis groups, where each class has an equal number of bits (i.e.,
M). Br. 11. Appellants add that the cited prior art does not transmit N
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed May 9,
2012 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed Jan. 16, 2013 ("Br."); and (3)
the Examiner's Answer mailed April 24, 2013 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
modulated RF carriers over N bonded channels, but rather Wei transmits K
modulated RF carriers over a broadcast channel-a transmission that is said
to differ from "channel bonding" that bonds or combines channels together
to achieve greater data throughput. Br. 11-12.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 by finding
that ITU, Wei, and Kolakowski collectively would have taught or suggested
( 1) block forming logic for forming trellis groups into blocks of MxN
groups, where the MxN block includes N sets of M trellis groups, and (2)
transmitting the recited N modulated RF carriers over N bonded channels?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that independent claim 6 recites an apparatus
with, among other things, (1) an outer code module; (2) block forming logic;
(3) mappers; and ( 4) modulators, where each of these elements has
associated functions. The last clause of claim 6, however, recites the act of
transmitting-a method step that renders the claim as directed to both an
apparatus and a method when considered as a whole. Such hybrid claims
have been held to be indefinite, including apparatus claims with transmission
steps, as is the case here. See Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL,
LLC, 641F.3d1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (data transmitting device held
indefinite for reciting transmitting method step). We, therefore, leave to the
Examiner to consider whether this inconsistency renders claims 6 and 10
indefinite under § 112(b) after this opinion.
4
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
Turning to the rejection, it is undisputed that ITU formats a symbol
stream to produce trellis groups, which, according to paragraph 21 of
Appellants' Specification, are groups of bits, where each group includes un-
coded bits and bits to be encoded. Final Act. 5---6 (citing ITU, Fig. B.10;
21: 1--4 ). Nor is it disputed that ITU does not form these groups into blocks
of MxN groups, where the MxN block includes N sets of M trellis groups.
Final Act. 5---6 (citing ITU, Fig. B.10; 21:1--4). The question, then, is
whether the Examiner erred by relying on Wei for that block formation.
The Examiner maps Wei's source encoder 105 to the recited "block
forming logic" which, as shown in Figure 1, provides k=12 classes of
information, where some classes are deemed more important than others.
Final Act. 6; Ans. 5; Wei, col. 3, 11. 34--39. Each of these classes has data
bits with an average of mi bits, where "i" ranges from 1 to 12. Wei, col 3, 11.
39--42. According to the Examiner, each information class containing mi
bits of data "maps M number of trellis group" [sic]. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.
Although this finding is not a model of clarity, the Examiner presumably
maps a group of bits for a particular information class to a respective trellis
group.
The Examiner also finds that Wei discloses "N" trellis encoders and
mappers which, as shown in Wei's Figure 1, is 12----one set of these devices
for each class. Final Act. 6; Ans. 5.
Given these teachings, the Examiner presumably finds that an "MxN
block" in Wei includes 12 sets of "M" trellis groups, where each set
corresponds to a particular class, such that N=12. And because a particular
class has one such trellis group (i.e., a group ofun-coded bits and bits to be
encoded) under the Examiner's presumed mapping, then M = 1 in that case.
5
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
In other words, Wei's MxN block includes 12 sets, each set having one
trellis group.
Given this correspondence, we find unavailing Appellants' contention
that because each information class in Wei does not have an equal number of
bits, each class does not include "M" trellis groups. Br. 11. Even assuming,
without deciding, that the number of bits varies as a result of averaging,
nothing in the claim precludes such a variance, for each classes' trellis
groups would still be obtained for a particular associated time interval used
in determining the average. See Wei, col. 3, 11. 39--42. Accord Ans. 5
(noting that the average of mi bits can result in one setup having 5 bits for a
specific bit length, and other setups can yield different lengths).
Not only do Appellants fail to persuasively rebut this finding, but
Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim
that does not preclude these particular trellis groups in Wei which at least
suggests a block including N sets of M trellis groups, where N=12 and M=l.
Appellants' arguments regarding ITU' s and Kolakowski' s shortcomings
regarding the recited block formation (Br. 10-11) are likewise unpersuasive,
for they are inapposite to the reason why the Examiner cited these
references. See Final Act. 4-7.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on Wei for at least
suggesting transmitting the recited N modulated RF carriers over N bonded
channels. According to paragraph 4 of Appellants' Specification, which
describes background art, "channel bonding" uses multiple downstream
channels to carry a single bitstream, where an input stream is multiplexed
across multiple bonded channels at the transmitter and de-multiplexed at the
receiver.
6
Appeal2013-009331
Application 11/316, 129
Given this description, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Wei's assigning each information class to a particular subchannel that is then
combined or bonded to a single channel via adder 17 5 as shown in Figure 1.
Ans. 7 (citing Wei, col. 4, 11. 48---61 ). That is, nothing in the claim precludes
transmitting the outputs of Wei's 12 baseband modulators 161-172 over 12
subchannels before the outputs are multiplexed or "bonded." As such, these
modulated signals are transmitted over "N" (i.e., 12) bonded channels.
Appellants' arguments regarding Wei's broadcast transmission (Br. 11-12)
are unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments regarding Kolakowski's shortcomings
regarding the recited bonded-channel transmission (Br. 12) are likewise
unpersuasive, for they are inapposite to the reason why the Examiner cited
this reference. See Final Act. 7.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6, and claims 1, 5, and 10 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 under
§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 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).
AFFIRMED
7