Ex Parte Tong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

10753546 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WEN TONG, CATHERINE LERETAILLE, and STEPHANE
GOSNE

____________

Appeal 2010-004321
Application 10/753,546
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004321
Application 10/753,546

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 14-46 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-13 were cancelled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 14 follows:
14. A method of interleaving and rate matching parallel
concatenated convolutional coded data by deletion of coded
data bits, the coded data bits comprising systematic bits and
parity bits, including the steps of interleaving the systematic
bits separately from the parity bits, and deleting parity bits from
the interleaved parity bits to provide the rate matching.

The Examiner rejected claims 14-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gelblum (U.S. Patent No. 6,330,277) in view of
AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) (Ans. 3-9).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gelblum and
the AAPA teaches or suggests “the steps of interleaving the systematic bits
separately from the parity bits, and deleting parity bits from the interleaved
Appeal 2010-004321
Application 10/753,546

3
parity bits to provide the rate matching,” as recited in independent claim 14,
and as similarly recited in independent claims 16, 22, 27, 30, 32, 37, 42, and
44-46?

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 14-46. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer
(Ans. 3-23) in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and
address certain findings and arguments below.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 14 as obvious because Gelblum “fails to delete parity bits from the
interleaved parity bits” (App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted)). In support of their
contention, Appellants argue that “Gelblum fails to disclose, teach or
suggest that rate matching is performed after channel interleaving” (id.).
Appellants further argue that “the alleged ‘prior art’ fails to disclose
enablement for its system” (id. at 19).
The Examiner found, however, that the AAPA teaches “that the
channel interleaver may either precede or follow the rate matching function”
(Ans. 10). The Examiner further found that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the
puncturing/interleaving devices of Gelblum with the interleaving/puncturing
devices of Applicant’s admitted prior art” (id.). We agree with the
Examiner. The AAPA indicates that “the channel interleaver either precedes
Appeal 2010-004321
Application 10/753,546

4
or follows a rate matching function which serves to match various data rates
to the radio frame rate, and which typically involves puncturing (omission)
or repetition of data symbols” (Spec. p. 1, l. 30 – p. 2, l. 3). Moreover,
Gelblum provides a description of deleting and interleaving parity bits that is
more than sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use
the system recited in claim 14. In particular, Gelblum teaches that
“transmitters remove parity bits in a process of puncturing” (col. 2, ll. 56-
57). Gelblum also teaches that “two interleavers are used, one interleaver is
for information bits and the second one is for parity bits” (col. 4, ll. 17-19).
Thus, the claim limitation of deleting parity bits from interleaved parity bits
is a combination of familiar elements from Gelblum and the AAPA that
yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 14. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
the remaining claims on appeal (i.e., claims 15-46) because Appellants did
not set forth any separate patentability and different arguments for them (See
App. Br. 20-21).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-46 as obvious.
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

peb