Ex Parte Strobel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201713915603 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/915,603 06/11/2013 Rainer Strobel KRAUP201US 8412 18052 7590 11/15/2017 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER AHN, SUNG S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/15/2017 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): docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAINER STROBEL, LILIA SMAOUI, and VLADIMIR OKSMAN Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lantiq Beteiligungs- GmbH & Co. KG (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a system configured to perform joint optimization of precoders and equalizers for multiple customer premises equipment (“CPE”) devices (Spec. 1 55). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A communication system with a plurality of electronic communication connections, comprising: a distribution point, comprising components that perform vector precoding and vector transmission power spectral density (PSD); a crosstalk channel; a plurality of customer premises equipment (CPE) devices, comprising components that perform vector equalization; a plurality of lines serving CPE devices, the plurality of lines being bonded; wherein the system is configured to allow joint optimization of a distribution point (DP) precoder and a CPE equalizer, or joint optimization of a DP equalizer and a CPE decoder, the joint optimization being based on a channel matrix describing crosstalk and an upper bound power, and wherein the distribution point controls the DP precoder and the CPE equalizer, or the DP equalizer and the CPE decoder, in the system. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS Claims 1—6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nuzman (US 2013/0215951 Al; published Aug. 22, 2013) (“Nuzman”), Schenk et al. (US 2011/0096870 Al; published Apr. 28, 2011) (“Schenk”), and Papandriopoulos et al. (US 2007/0274404 Al; published Nov. 29, 2007) (“Papandriopoulos”) (see Final Act. 5—12). 2 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overNuzman, Ginis et al. (US 2003/0086514 Al; published May 8, 2003) (“Ginis”), and Papandriopoulos (see Final Act. 12—15). Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overNuzman and Papandriopoulos (see Final Act. 15—17). Claims 9—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overNuzman, Ginis, Papandriopoulos, and Graziano (US 7,113,491 B2; issued Sept. 26, 2006) (“Graziano”) (see Final Act. 17—21). Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overNuzman, Schenk, Papandriopoulos, and Wight (US 2006/0008024 Al; published Jan. 12, 2006) (“Wight”) (see Final Act. 22). Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable overNuzman, Ginis, Papandriopoulos, and Wight (see Final Act. 23—24). PRINCIPLES OF LAW The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is “whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art.” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 3 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 Further, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as explained below. Independent Claims 1 and 7 Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest “a channel matrix describing crosstalk and an upper bound power,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 7 (see App. Br. 5). More specifically, Appellants argue Nuzman merely describes a processor that estimates crosstalk channels using a channel matrix describing crosstalk, and fails to teach or suggest the construction of the channel matrix is based on an upper bound power as claimed (see App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2). Appellants further argue Papandriopoulos merely describes a finite maximum power constraint and a maximum power spectral density (“PSD”) limit (i.e., PSD mask), and also fails to teach or suggest using an upper bound power in generating a channel matrix as claimed (see App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. Appellants’ argument is premised on the assertion that no single reference (i.e., Nuzman 4 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 or Papandriopoulos) teaches or suggests a channel matrix that describes both crosstalk and an upper bound power. However, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on a single cited reference, but instead, is based on a combination of cited references. More specifically, the Examiner found Nuzman teaches a system including a distribution point (“DP”) and CPEs, where the DP includes a processor that precodes vectors and applies a channel matrix to the precoded vectors to compensate for crosstalk between the DP and the CPEs without exceeding a total power constraint (i.e., a PSD constraint for transmission at a specific frequency) (see Ans. 2—3 (citing Nuzman H91, 92, 149, 176); see also Final Act. 6—7; see also Nuzman || 124—126). The Examiner further found Papandriopoulos teaches defining a maximum PSD limit for power allocation among frequencies within a frequency domain (see Ans. 3 (citing Papandriopoulos 63); see also Final Act. 7). Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of error in either of these findings. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed limitation (i.e., generating a channel matrix that describes both crosstalk and an upper bound power), would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of Nuzman and Papandriopoulos (and the other cited references) (see Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 8). Appellants’ argument that their Specification defines an “upper bound power” as a minimum of a PSD limit and a required power for maximum bitloading (see Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. 1112)) is also unpersuasive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is well known to define any upper bound (or limit) of power allocation as a minimum of a required power to achieve an objective of the power allocation and the upper bound (or limit). As such, the PSD constraint disclosed in both Nuzman and 5 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 Papandriopoulos teaches the claimed “upper bound power” consistent with its description in Appellants’ Specification. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests “a channel matrix describing crosstalk and an upper bound power,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claim 5 Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “a vector equalizer . . . being adapted to equalize information about a dynamic power spectral density shaping,” as recited in claim 5 (see App. Br. 7). More specifically, Appellants argue Nuzman merely describes equalization in a general manner, as well as ensuring amplified signals do not exceed a PSD threshold, but fails to teach or suggest equalizing information about PSD shaping (see App. Br. 7—8). Appellants further argue Papandriopoulos merely describes fixed-point equations for use in updating PSDs, where an equation utilizes a maximum power threshold (i.e., Pmax), and also fails to teach or suggest equalizing information about PSD shaping (see App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Again, Appellants attack the references individually rather than addressing the combination of references. As previously discussed with respect to claim 1, the Examiner found Nuzman teaches a system including a DP and CPEs, where the DP includes a processor that precodes vectors (see Ans. 3 (citing Nuzman H79, 82—86); see also Final Act. 8—9). The Examiner further found Schenk 6 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 teaches a frequency equalizer to resolve vector error (including crosstalk) in a received vector (see Ans. 3^4 (citing Schenk ||83—84, 137—138); see also Final Act. 9). As also previously described with respect to claim 1, the Examiner found Papandriopoulos teaches defining a maximum PSD limit for power allocation among frequencies within a frequency domain (see Ans. 4 (citing Papandriopoulos 63); see also Final Act. 9). Similar to the argument presented for claim 1, Appellants’ argument regarding claim 5 does not persuade us of error in either of these findings. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests, “a vector equalizer . . . being adapted to equalize information about a dynamic power spectral density shaping,” as recited in claim 5. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Independent Claim 16 Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest, “a precoder . . . adapted to precode information about dynamic power spectral density shaping,” as recited in claim 16 (see App. Br. 8). More specifically, similar to Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 5, Appellants argue the cited references discuss PSD generally, but do not teach or suggest a precoder that receives information about PSD shaping and subsequently performs a precoding operation based on that information (see App. Br. 9). For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention of Examiner error and agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests, “a 7 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 precoder . . . adapted to precode information about dynamic power spectral density shaping,” as recited in claim 16. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 10 Appellants contend the combination of cited references fails to teach or suggest “synchronously switching the transmitters from the modified PSD to the unmodified PSD,” as recited in claim 10 (see App. Br. 9). More specifically, Appellants argue Ginis merely describes an iterative process of changing a power constraint to optimize a data rate by comparing an optimal data rate to a target rate, and then modifying a user’s power constraint in response to the comparisons, which fails to teach or suggest a synchronous switching of transmitters from a modified PSD to an unmodified PSD (see App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4—5). Appellants further argue Graziano merely discloses ascertaining and storing noise power across a range of frequencies for future use, and fails to teach or suggest a synchronous switching of transmitters from a modified PSD to an unmodified PSD (see App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As the Examiner correctly found, Ginis teaches iteratively switching transmitters from an unmodified PSD to a modified PSD and vice-versa, as Ginis discloses iteratively changing a power constraint for a user based on a comparison of an optimal data rate and the user’s target rate (see Ans. 5 (citing Ginis 139)). We agree with the Examiner that synchronously switching transmitters from a modified PSD to an unmodified PSD, as opposed to iteratively switching, 8 Appeal 2017-007298 Application 13/915,603 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the disclosure of Ginis and the other cited references (see id.). We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests “synchronously switching the transmitters from the modified PSD to the unmodified PSD,” as recited in claim 10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims (see App. Br. 7—9). We therefore sustain their rejections for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 16. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation