Ex Parte Waters et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613525283 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/525,283 06/16/2012 23494 7590 06/02/2016 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Deric Waters 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. TI-64460A 6007 EXAMINER MALEK, LEILA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DERIC WATERS, ANUJ BATRA, and SRINATH HOSUR Appeal2015-001250 Application 13/525,283 1 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 43--46, 48, 50-54, 57-59, and 62---65. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention relates to "improved multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) detection with a favorable performance-complexity trade-off compared to the Maximum-Likelihood detector and other existing 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-001250 Application 13/525,283 MIMO detectors." See Spec. if 14. Claim 43 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight a disputed limitation. 43. A multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) detection system, comprising: a leaf node predictor for receiving a processed communications stream, determining at least one channel metric, which is a function of a matrix, corresponding to the communications stream for a given channel realization, and generating at least three instructions to output including at least one vector, wherein the leaf node predictor does not have a channel output as an input; and a MIMO engine for enumerating at least one candidate vector corresponding to an at least one best leaf node candidate. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL (1) The Examiner rejected claims 43, 44, 46, 48, 50-54, 57-59, and 62---65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Walton et al. (US 2007 /0162827 Al; publ. July 12, 2007) (hereinafter "Walton"). (2) The Examiner rejected claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the Examiner in (1) the January 6, 2014 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-8) and 2 Appeal2015-001250 Application 13/525,283 (2) the October 29, 2014 Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-9). We highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for emphasis. (1) Channel Output Appellants argue Walton does not disclose "wherein the leaf node predictor does not have a channel output as an input," as recited in claims 43 and 58. See App. Br. 15-20; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellants contend Walton's leaf-node predictor has the channel output as an input, contrary to the claims. See App. Br. 17 ("What the examiner is calling Walton's leaf-node predict[ or] should be considered as fully contained in the Rx Spatial Processor (160), which has the channel output as an input."). In making this contention, Appellants argue the output of Walton's RCVR block (154a-r) is the claimed "channel output" because although it is "a processed signal and not the channel output directly," the RCVR block output is a function of the channel output. See App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 2 ("Appellants' argument is better stated that the leaf-node predictor does not have any input that is a function of the transmitted data vector s."). The Examiner finds Walton discloses this disputed limitation. See Ans. 7-9. The Examiner first finds "channel output represents the signal received through the channel, before any further processing at the receiver." See Ans. 7-8 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 16, 28, 41). As to Walton, the Examiner finds it discloses the leaf node predictor (160, 190) does not have a channel output as an input because the signal the spatial processor 160 receives from the RCVR block (154a-r) is no longer the channel output, but is a processed signal. See Ans. 8-9 (citing Walton Fig. 1). "[T]he channel output is received by receivers 154a-154r which are not part of the leaf node predictor." See Ans. 8. 3 Appeal2015-001250 Application 13/525,283 We agree with the Examiner that Walton discloses not having a channel output as an input. See, e.g., Walton Fig. 1. In accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we agree with the Examiner "not hav[ing] a channel output" means not having a signal as received by the receivers rather than a signal that has been processed. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (providing during examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification); In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee."). We find Appellants' argument that Walton fails to disclose this disputed limitation because it has an input signal that is a function of the channel output unpersuasive. The claim language recites "channel output," rather than a function of the channel output. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (stating limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability); In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted) (finding "the name of the game is the claim"). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner Walton discloses not having a channel output as an input because the signals inputted to the spatial processor 160 from the RCVR block (155a-r) have been processed after being received. See Fig. 1, 10; i-fi-141--44. (2) The controller/processor 190 Appellants argue the controller/processor 190 should not be considered as part of the leaf-node predictor. See App. Br. 17-18. 4 Appeal2015-001250 Application 13/525,283 Specifically, Appellants argue including the processor 190 is not disclosed by Walton, nor an obvious improvement. See id. The Examiner finds including the controller/processor 190 in the leaf- node predictor is proper because it controls the spatial processor 160. See Ans. 9 (citing Walton i-f 28). We are not apprised by Appellants of error in the Examiner's finding and reasoning. Furthermore, Appellants do not substantively explain why whether the controller/processor 190 is part of the leaf-node predictor impacts a claim limitation. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 at 13 69 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (finding "the name of the game is the claim"). CONCLUSION Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 43 and 58. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 44--46, 48, 50-54, 57, 59, and 62-65 for which Appellants did not provide separate arguments for patentability. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 43--46, 48, 50-54, 57- 59, and 62---65. 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation