Ex Parte Wallen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 11, 2013

10991878 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2013)

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.
10/991,878 11/18/2004 Anders Wallen 4015-5251 8906
24112 7590 03/11/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
YU, LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/11/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDERS WALLEN

Appeal 2010-010555
1

Application 10/991,878
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (App. Br.
2.)
Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-35. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for improving noise
estimation processing in a wireless communication receiver. In particular,
upon receiving a signal, a receiver circuit (12) generates an initial noise
correlation estimate for which the receiver circuit calculates a corresponding
error term as an error matrix. Then, the receiver circuit removes the error
term from the noise correlation estimate to thereby obtain a compensated
noise correlation estimate (matrix) therefor. (Fig. 1, [0012].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of improving noise estimation processing in a
wireless communication receiver comprising:
generating a noise correlation estimate for a received
signal;
calculating an error term corresponding to the noise
correlation estimate arising from a receiver frequency error; and
obtaining a compensated noise correlation estimate by
removing the error term from the noise correlation estimate.

Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
Russell US 4,477,912 Oct. 16, 1984
Ranganath US 5,239,591 Aug. 24, 1993
Blakeney, II US 5,490,165 Feb. 6, 1996
Kleinerman US 6,470,047 B1 Oct. 22, 2002
Magee US 6,563,885 B1 May 13, 2003
Wang US 6,714,585 B1 Mar. 30, 2004
Mutoh US 6,807,242 B1 Oct. 19, 2004
Bottomley US 2005/0069023 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Kim US 7,408,894 B2 Aug. 5, 2008

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
a) Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12-14, 16, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 29-31 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Russell.
b) Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Kim.
c) Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Wang.
d) Clams 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Bottomley.
e) Claims 9, 10, 22, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Russell and Magee.
Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

4
f) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell Magee, Kleinerman and Ranganath.
g) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Blakeney.
h) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Ranganath.
i) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Mutoh.
j) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell and Blakeney.
k) Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell, Magee, and Blakeney.
l) Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Russell, Magee, and Wang.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-25, and the Reply Brief, pages 3-9.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding
that Russell teaches or suggests generating a noise correlation estimate for a
received signal, as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

5
Appellant argues that Russell does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 9-15, Reply Br. 3-8.) In particular,
Appellant argues that while Russell discloses a correlation detection
technique to recover a transmitted data sequence by correlating the received
signal with a pseudo-random binary code used to spread the transmitted
signal, such correlation detection pertains to code-division multiple access
(CDMA), and not to a noise correlation estimate in a signal. (App. Br. 10,
13.) Therefore, the disclosed pseudo-random binary code is not noise signal.
According to Appellant, even if the pseudo-random binary code were
considered to be noise, Russell’s disclosure would not be generating a noise
correlation estimate because the correlation detector does not find an
estimate for the pseudorandom code. Rather, the detector simply finds the
best match between the incoming signal and a locally generated pseudo-
random code, which is subsequently removed from the signal to recover the
transmitted data. Thus, Russell at best discloses generating an estimate of
the transmitted data sequence and not the pseudo-code. (App. Br. 14, Reply
Br. 5.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Russell’s disclosure of a
correlation detector for estimating a pseudo-random binary code, which can
include noise substantially, teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 4, 5, 17,
and 18.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we agree with the
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness regarding claim 1. Russell discloses a correlation detection
Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

6
circuit that uses a plurality of locally generated reference pseudorandom
code words to decode a previously encoded signal including a stream of
pseudorandom binary code words received from a data source. In particular,
the correlation detector correlates the sequences in the encoded
pseudorandom data stream successively with each of the reference
pseudorandom code words to find a match therebetween. (Col. 9, ll. 3-11.)
A feedback loop is subsequently used to eliminate frequency translation
error resulting from the introduction of the pseudorandom codes in the
signal. (Abstr.) We therefore find that because the received encoded signal
includes a pseudorandom binary code that is successively compared with
each locally generated reference pseudorandom sequence, Russell’s
estimation of the signal includes an estimation of the pseudorandom binary
code contained therein. Further, we find that because the pseudorandom
binary code contained in the signal can comprise of noise (Ans. 17-18,
Reply Br. 6), Russell’s disclosure of generating a correlation estimate for the
pseudorandom binary code in the signal also teaches generating a noise
correlation estimate.
Further, we find that Russell’s disclosure of eliminating frequency
translation error introduced by pseudorandom codes during the correlation
from the transmitted signal teaches removing a calculated error term from
the noise correlation estimate. We are therefore satisfied that the cited
disclosures of Russell teach or suggest the disputed limitations. It follows
that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 over Russell.
Appeal 2010-010555
Application 10/991,878

7
Regarding claims 2-35, Appellant reiterates substantially the same
arguments submitted for the patentability of claim 1 above. (App. Br. 15-
25.) As discussed above, these arguments are not persuasive. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Further, while Appellant raised additional arguments for
patentability of the cited claims, we find that the Examiner has rebutted in
the Answer each and every one of those arguments by a preponderance of
the evidence. (Ans. 18-20.) Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings
and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference.
Consequently, we have found no error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims
2-35.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-35 as set
forth above.
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