Ex Parte Servaes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2012

10952435 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHE SERVAES
____________________

Appeal 2010-003175
Application 10/952,435
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003175
Application 10/952,435

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claimed invention is directed to a system and a method for
canceling noise in a received signal, received at a receiver with a frequency
domain equalizer (FEQ) after which a noise prediction error of the signal is
determined and used to update the FEQ to mitigate the effect of noise in the
signal. Spec ¶ [0004]. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for canceling noise in a received signal,
comprising:
receiving a signal at a receiver comprising a frequency
domain equalizer (FEQ);
determining a noise prediction error of the signal; and
updating the FEQ with the noise prediction error, wherein the
act of updating mitigates the effect of noise in the signal.

REJECTIONS
Claim 1-20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as being
anticipated by Strait (US 7,020,212 B1, Mar. 28, 2006, filed Jan. 16, 2001).
Ans. 5-7.

CLAIM GROUPING
Since Appellant’s arguments for claims 1, 10, and 20 are identical
except for the disputed limitations of claims 1, 10, and 20 (compare App. Br.
4-6 with App. Br. 7-9 and App. Br. 9-12), and the rejections for these
Appeal 2010-003175
Application 10/952,435

3
disputed limitations are substantively the same (see Ans. 3-5, 6-8), we group
independent claims 10 and 20 with independent claim 1. Dependent claims
2-9 and 11-19 are not argued separately (App. Br. 12). Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1-20. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Strait discloses “updating the
FEQ with the noise prediction error,” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Strait does not disclose “updating the FEQ
with the noise prediction error” as recited in claim 1, because Strait indicates
that determining the corrective coefficient for the FEQ and the training of
the FEQ may be performed at the same time. App. Br. 5 (citing Strait col. 8,
ll. 24-31). In addition, Appellant contends that Strait’s disclosure that the
“single tap predictor may be updated with past rate-of-change information . .
.” (Strait col. 8, l. 46) indicates that the tap predictor or FEQ in Strait is not
updated with noise prediction error as recited in the claim. App. Br. 5.
Appellant also asserts that the noise estimate in Strait is not determined until
after the coefficients are recalculated. Id. Finally, Appellant argues that
“decoder error” in Strait, which is not used to update the FEQ, is also not
equivalent to the claimed “noise prediction error.” App. Br. 6. Figure 3 in
Strait, Appellant asserts, only shows that noise estimate and the cancelled
decoder error yield uncancelled decoder error which is not related to
“updating the noise prediction error” of claim 1. Id.
Appeal 2010-003175
Application 10/952,435

4
The Examiner, in response, found that the FEQ in Strait is updated
when the taps of the filter are updated, adjusted, modified or altered by using
“the noise prediction error.” Ans. 9. Since the noise prediction error is not
explicitly defined, the Examiner properly interpreted it as “error of noise.”
Id. The Examiner found that the filter taps are continuously adjusted during
receiver operations because the “adaptive filter” taps are determined as
shown in Fig. 3 and discussed in Strait (col. 6, ll. 33-67). Ans. 9-10. The
Examiner concluded that “Strait discloses the adaptive filter taps are
updated by [being] continuously adjusted during the receiver operation.”
Ans. 10. The Examiner also found that Strait indicates that a storage unit
stored the decoder error or noise estimate which the canceller uses to
determine the adaptive filter tap. Ans. 10 (citing Strait col. 3, ll. 9-15).
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
response. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred.
Although Appellant argues that the filter taps of the FEQ in Strait are
updated with past information or only may be determined at the same time,
Appellant’s claim does not preclude this particular sequence of receiving a
signal and determining a noise prediction error of the signal. Therefore,
Strait discloses the limitations of claim 1.
With respect to the noise prediction error of claim 1, we find the
Examiner’s interpretation of this term to be reasonable. Ans. 9 (construing
noise prediction error as an error of noise). Appellant argues that noise
prediction error is completely different than an “error of noise” and lacks the
predictive property. Reply 2-3. We disagree. First, the Examiner’s
construction and reference to noise error use in Strait is consistent with
Appellant’s Specification, which leaves the definition as broad as possible
Appeal 2010-003175
Application 10/952,435

5
without defining the meaning of “noise prediction error.” See Spec. ¶¶
[0004]-[0006]. Second, the noise error does not preclude the predictive
property disclosed in Strait, which discloses that noise error is stored and
used to determine the adaptive filter tap. Ans. 10.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and the claims that were grouped with claim 1;
independent claims 10 and 20 and dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Strait disclosed the
independent claim 1 limitation, “updating the FEQ with the noise prediction
error.”

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 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

ELD