11415447 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 2014

11415447 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FEI FRANK ZHOU, YAN WANG, PANAYIOTIS PAPADIMITRIOU, and ZHOUYUE PI ____________ Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 32-37. The Examiner indicated that claims 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Claims 20-31 were canceled; claims 10-19 were withdrawn from consideration. (App. Br. 1). Appellants appeal from the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention relates to "an approach . . . presented for channel interleaving in a communication system that provide[s], for example, broadcast and multicast services." (Spec. ¶[0005]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: [a] receiving a plurality of symbols; [b] partitioning the symbols into a plurality of sub blocks, the sub blocks forming a plurality of subsequences; [c] generating a first output sequence from the subsequences; [d] selecting subsequences of the first output sequence to generate a second output sequence by at least puncturing at least one of the selected subsequences; and [e] jointly interleaving two or more of the subsequences selected into the second output sequence using a matrix interleaver. (Steps lettered and disputed limitation emphasized). Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 3 REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1-3 and 32-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of US Patent 7,272,191 B2 ("Taffin") and US Patent 6,987,778 B2 ("Sindhushayana"). R2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of US Patent 7,272,191 ("Taffin"), US Patent 6,987,778 ("Sindhushayana"), and US Patent 6,298,461 B1 ("Tong"). R3. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of US Patent 7,272,191 ("Taffin"), US Patent 6,987,778 ("Sindhushayana"), and US Patent 6,539,050 B1 ("Lee"). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection R1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3 and 32-37 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). 1 We address the rejection R2 of claim 8 separately, infra. We address the rejection R3 of claim 9 separately, infra. 1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on November 2, 2010. The date of filing the Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an ex parte appeal. If a notice of appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the 2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to the appeal. See also MPEP Rev. 8, July 2010. Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 4 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's obviousness rejections of the claims. 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 in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief with the following exception. (Ans. 11-15). We do not adopt the Examiner's finding "that col. 15, lines 47-68 in Sindhushayana teaches that U, V0, V'0, V1 and V'1 are written into the same KxM matrix . . . ." (Emphasis added; Ans. 5, 12). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below: R1. CLAIM 1 A. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of references would have taught or suggested [e] "jointly interleaving two or more of the subsequences selected into the second output sequence using a matrix interleaver" (emphasis added) within the meaning of claim 1? Appellants contend: Appellants submit that block swapping of Sindhushayana or the entire algorithm in FIG. 6 not only does not constitute "jointly interleaving ... using a matrix interleaver," as claimed, but does not even qualify as "jointly interleaving" because it lacks the element of alternating parts one of sequence among parts of another sequence, which must be present in any joint interleaver. (Reply Br. 10) Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. We conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "jointly interleaving" (which is not defined in Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 5 the Specification) encompasses Sindhushayana's teaching of exchanging bits between two interleaved matrixes (U and V0/V0'), where the exchanged bits are inserted between un-exchanged bits in the resulting output sequence (Fig. 7A and 7B; "interspersed"). (Sindhushayana Fig. 6; col. 15, l. 47 – col. 16, l. 6; Ans. 11-13). Specifically, Sindhushayana's Figures 7A and 7B in U block, show group bits 1 from block V0/V'0 between (alternated or interleaved) two group bits. Appellants’ contention the claimed "jointly interleaving" requires non- random alternating parts of two sequences is not persuasive because Appellants fail to cite to a definition in the Specification of "jointly interleaving" supporting non-random alternating parts. (Reply Br. 10). Moreover, the “Dictionary of IEEE Standards” cited by Appellants (Reply Br. 7) and the Examiner (Ans. 14), does not define "interleaving" as requiring non-random alternating parts. Consistent with the Dictionary of IEEE Standards' definition of "interleaving," Sindhushayana's rearrangement/interleaving process in Figure 6 does "alternate with parts of one or more other sequences . . . and so that each sequence retains its identity" because Sindhushayana rearranged symbols jointly within U and V0/Vo' subsequences can be identified and demodulated. (See col. 15, ll. 60- 67). B. Regarding claim 1 limitation [e], Appellants also contend "Sindhushayana does not teach joint interleaving using a matrix interleaver as recited in the independent claims" because " Sindhushayana does not teach jointly interleaving using the same or a common matrix[.]" (Reply Br. 3). Specifically, Appellants contend the limitation in Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 6 question is not taught or suggested by the combination of references cited because Sindhushayana's Figure 6, Step 600 writes sequences V0, V'0, V1, and V'1 into rectangular arrays of three input blocks, not into one common matrix. (Reply Br. 5-6). Appellants' contention is not persuasive. Appellants' contentions are not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 1 limitation [e]. Specifically, the claim does not require the output of step [e]'s jointly interleaving to be one common matrix and we decline to read Appellants’ imputed requirement of a single matrix into the claim. For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 3, and 32-37, which fall therewith. R2. CLAIM 8 Regarding the rejection R2 of dependent claim 8, Appellants urge that the claim is patentable for the same reasons we did not find persuasive regarding rejection R1 of representative claim 1. (App. Br. 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. R3. CLAIM 9 Regarding the rejection R3 of claims 9, Appellants urge that the claim is patentable for the same reasons we did not find persuasive regarding rejection R1 of representative claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal 2011-008153 Application 11/415,447 7 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 32-37 under § 103(a). No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tj