Ex Parte Terry

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2018

13190478 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/190,478 07/26/2011
91844 7590 11/19/2018
Patrick L Mixon
3407 W. Country Club Dr# 2021
Irving, TX 75038
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John David Terry
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.
Terry UOOl 2224
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/19/2018 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):
mixon.patrick@gmail.com
pmixon@pmxbaa.com
p_mixon@rocketmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN DAVID TERRY
Appeal2017-003897
Application 13/190,478
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-7 and 20-22. An oral hearing was held on November 7, 2018.
A transcript of the hearing will be made of record in due course. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is inventor
Dr. John Terry. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-003897
Application 13/190,478
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "embedding digital
signals and digital information within digital chaos waveforms." Spec. ,r 1.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of embedding a data signal in a wireless
transmission using a digital chaos sequenced spreading code,
compnsmg:
a. recording a featureless communication waveform
having nonlinear dynamics;
b. buffering said featureless communication waveform
into distinct segments;
c. sampling said distinct segments to ensure low cross-
correlation amongst said samples of distinct segments;
d. grouping samples of said distinct segments at a
predefined length and variable quantity;
e. processing at least one group of said group of sampled
distinct segments using Gram-Schmidt processing;
f. storing said Gram-Schmidt processed group in a first
non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
h. reading out said stored Gram-Schmidt processed group
from said first non-transitory computer readable storage
medium;
i. spreading said data signal using said read out Gram-
Schmidt processed group as a spreading code to create a spreaded
data signal;
j. modulating said spreaded data signal; and
k. and transmitting said modulated spreaded data signal.
2
Appeal2017-003897
Application 13/190,478
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA)
as indefinite. Final Act. 4--5.
2. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Karabinis (US 2009/0003418 Al, Jan. 1, 2009) and Reisinger
(US 2002/0070845 Al, June 13, 2002). Final Act. 5-13.
3. Claims 4, 7, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Karabinis, Reisinger, and Agulnik (US 2010/0248680 Al, Sept. 30,
2010). Final Act. 13-14.
DISCUSSION
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 5 as indefinite. See Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant does not address this rejection. Accordingly, we summarily
sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
Claim 1 recites "recording a featureless communication waveform
having nonlinear dynamics." Appellant argues "since the 'seed' waveforms
of Karabinis must conform to a 'time-bandwidth constraint,' then underlying
dynamics follow a linear relationship due to the fact that an increase in time
must result in identical decrease bandwidth to meet the time-bandwidth
constraint." App. Br. 8. Therefore, according to Appellant, "Karabinis
teaches a waveform having linear dynamics and not a featureless waveform
having nonlinear dynamics." App. Br. 8.
3
Appeal2017-003897
Application 13/190,478
The Examiner responds that, according to U.S. Patent No. 6,882,689,
cited in the Background section of Appellant's Specification, a non-
repeating pseudo random code teaches a chaotic code. Ans. 3--4. The
Examiner concludes that "[ t ]here fore, the pseudo-random waveform
(featureless waveform) generator disclosed by Karabinis disclose[s] the
featureless waveform having nonlinear dynamics." Ans. 4. Although the
Examiner concludes that Karabinis teaches a waveform having nonlinear
dynamics because it teaches a pseudo-random waveform, we find the
Examiner does not sufficiently connect these two concepts. In other words,
the Examiner does not sufficiently explain why a pseudo-random waveform
necessarily teaches a waveform having nonlinear dynamics.
Constrained by the record before us, for the aforementioned reason,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 nor of
independent claims 5 and 20, which contain similar limitations. The
pending dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
4