Ex Parte WallenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 11, 201310991878 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2013) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation