Ex Parte Woodard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201512164770 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JASON P. WOODARD, ANDREW PAPAGEORGIOU, and DIEGO GIANCOLA ____________________ Appeal 2012-011429 Application 12/164,770 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The invention relates to a radio receiver that compensates for intersymbol interference by operating in either an equalizer or a RAKE mode (see Spec. 2). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2012-011429 Application 12/164,770 2 1. A radio receiver comprising a compensator arranged to compensate for intersymbol interference in a signal received at the receiver and a configurator arranged to configure the compensator, wherein the compensator comprises a programmable filter and the configurator is capable of configuring the filter in a first mode to operate as an ISI equaliser or in a second mode to implement a RAKE finger set. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rademacher Black Horneman US 6,570,918 B1 US 7,646,802 B2 US 7,746,917 B2 May 27, 2003 Jan. 12, 2010 June 29, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Black. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Black and Rademacher. Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Black and Horneman. ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend: [I]t is clear that the processor disclosed in Black et al[.] uses both an equalizer and a rake and thus does not disclose a programmable filter which can be configured “in a first mode to operate as an ISI equalizer or in a second mode to implement a Appeal 2012-011429 Application 12/164,770 3 rake finger set.” Instead, the processor has both components, each component being provided on a separate processing path; the data processor 312 “includes two signal processing paths that can be operated in parallel” (see column 7, lines 24 to 26). (Br. 5). Appellants further contend “[t]here is no disclosure in the cited section of column 11, or indeed anywhere else in the Black reference, of a programmable filter that can be configured to operate as an ISI equali[z]er or to implement a rake finger set” (id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Black’s Figure 3 shows a receiver with a receive data processor 310 that includes parallel processing paths, one path having an equalizer 312, the other path having a RAKE 316 (see Black, col. 7, ll. 22–29; Fig. 3). The receiver also includes a switch 320 that “selects the recovered symbols from either post processor 314 [which is connected to the output of the equalizer] or [the] RAKE 316” (id. at col. 7, ll. 58–60). Black describes the selection of symbols as follows: In an embodiment, the two signal processing paths can be operated in parallel (e.g., during the adaptation period) and a signal quality estimate can be computed for each of the signal processing paths. The signal processing path that provides the better signal quality can then be selected to process the received signals. (Id. at col. 8, ll. 11–17). We find that Black’s receive data processor with a switch for selecting symbols from either the equalizer or the RAKE meets the limitation of “a programmable filter and the configurator is capable of configuring the filter in a first mode to operate as an ISI equaliser or in a second mode to implement a RAKE finger set,” as recited in claim 1. The fact that the equalizer (equaliser) and RAKE operate in parallel paths, as Appellants note (Br. 5), does not change our finding because Black discloses Appeal 2012-011429 Application 12/164,770 4 making a selection from one path at a time (see Black, col. 8, ll. 15–17), and claim 1 does not preclude having both components operating simultaneously. Further, the fact that Black also discloses an embodiment with either a RAKE or RAKE plus equalizer mode (see id. at col. 11, ll. 16– 20; Fig. 5) does not detract from the teachings in the embodiment shown in Black’s Figure 3. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claim 5 not specifically argued separately. The Obviousness Rejections Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 2–4 and 6–8 that neither Rademacher nor Horneman cure the deficiencies of Black with respect to the limitations of claims 1 and 5 (see Br. 6) are unavailing. As discussed above, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 5 based on Black. We thus also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2– 4 and 6–8 for the same reasoning. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 5. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2–4 and 6–8. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-011429 Application 12/164,770 5 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 hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation