Ex Parte Zhu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201814687234 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) 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. 14/687,234 04/15/2015 Mingrui Zhu 24055US03 2033 23446 7590 02/02/2018 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 EXAMINER AHN, SUNG S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): mhmpto @ mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MINGRUI ZHU, ARUN KEDAMBADI, SEUNG CHUL HONG, ANAND ANANDAKUMAR1 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 21—40, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 1—20 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to combining a guard interval (GI) and a corresponding portion of a received symbol. See Abstract. 1 Appellants name Maxlinear Inc. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 Claim 21 is illustrative: 21. A method for handling communications in a communication device, the method comprising: receiving a signal carrying at least one symbol that is preceded by a guard interval (GI) that comprises a portion of said symbol; determining a portion of said guard interval (GI) that is free from inter-symbol interference (ISI); extracting only a part of said ISI-free portion of said guard interval (GI), wherein said part of said ISI-free portion of said guard interval (GI) is selected based on timing adjustment, relative to start of said symbol, applied to a function used in extracting said symbol; and combining the extracted part of said ISI-free portion of said guard interval (GI) with a corresponding portion of said symbol. Appellants appeal the following rejections: Rl. Claims 21—23, 30—33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyoshi (US2009/0239484 Al, Sept. 24, 2009) and Sheu (US 2005/0105659 Al, May 19, 2005) (Final Act. 4-6); R2. Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyoshi, Sheu, and Zhang (US 2005/0100118 Al, May 12, 2005) (id. at 7); R3. Claims 25—28 and 35—38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyoshi, Sheu, and Gore (US 2008/0152033 Al, June 26, 2008) (id. at 7—9); and R4. Claims 29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyoshi, Sheu, Gore, and Kim (US 2005/0135324 Al, June 23, 2005) (id. at 10). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence 2 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Claims 21—23 and 31—33 Appellants contend that “Sheu does not teach or suggest any ‘combining’ of the ISI-free portion (let alone only a portion thereof) . . . [and] Sheu fails to teach determining the ISI-free region” (App. Br. 8). In response, the Examiner finds that “Miyoshi disclose[s] the Guard Interval (GI) length determining section . . . Guard Interval (GI) extracting section . . . Guard Interval (GI) combining section . . . [and] Miyoshi further disclose[s] the extracting [of] the specific [portion of] GI. . . Sheu . . . further disclose[s] the OFDM system for accurate estimation of symbol timing” (Ans. 3). The Examiner further finds that “the combined teachings of Myoshi and Sheu as a whole [are used] to produce the invention as claimed” (id. at 4). We agree with the Examiner. Specifically, Appellants’ argument against Sheu separately from Miyoshi does not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425-26 (CCPA 1981). For example, the Examiner relies upon Miyoshi for teaching the claimed determining, extracting, and combining steps, with the exception of teaching that the GI is selected based on a timing adjustment, which the Examiner imports Sheu to teach (see Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 3—4). In 3 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 other words, Miyoshi, not Sheu, is being relied upon to teach determining a portion of said guard interval (GI) that is free from inter-symbol interference and extracting the same and combining with the symbol (see Final Act. 4). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) (citations omitted). This reasoning is applicable here. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 31 relies on the same arguments as for claim 21, and Appellants do not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims 22, 23, 32, and 33 (see App. Br. 6—12). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 23, and 31—33. Claims 24 and 34 Appellants contend that “Zhang does not disclose performing that ‘correlation’ by applying ‘a linear addition and a shifting operation’” (App. Br. 15), because “nothing in Zhang’s description of [multiplier 24] justify construing to mean Tine adder’ . . . [and] nowhere does Zhang describe any shifting” (id.). 4 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 In response, the Examiner finds that “Zhang disclose[s] the correlation of the guard interval (GI) with the data in bit data stream with bit adder/multiplier (Fig. 4 (26, 27) —linear adder) and accumulator/integrator (Fig. 4 (25) — shifter)” (Ans. 5). We agree with the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants contention that nothing in Zhang describes a line adder and shifting, we highlight that Zhang discloses “[referring to FIG. 4, the multi-sliding integrator includes a shift register 25” (1 50) and “[e]ach of the first, second, third, and forth integration units 260, 290, 320, and 350 includes a respective set of two adders and a delayer” (| 53). In other words, Zhang clearly teaches and suggests linear addition and a shifting operation. Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants’ aforementioned contention, given the disclosures in Zhang. The Examiner further finds that “the combined teachings of Miyoshi, Sheu, and Zhang as a whole [] produce the invention as claimed for claims 24 and 34” (Ans. 6), and Appellants fail to argue the combination. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 and 34. Claims 25 and 35 Appellants contend that “Gore does not disclose (or even suggest) any ‘predetermined maximum channel delay’ . . . [and] Gore does not teach or suggest (alone or in combination with Miyoshi and Sheu) doing so prior . . . to combining portions of the guard intervals (GIs)” (App. Br. 17—18). Although the Examiner finds that “Miyoshi disclose[s] the system for detecting the maximum time of delayed wave (delay spread) and adjusting the length of Guard Interval (GI). . . [and] Gore disclose[s] the setting [of] 5 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 maximum delay spread being equal to cyclic prefix length” (Ans. 6—7), we cannot find where the Examiner addresses the “prior to” language in the claims. Thus, even if we assume arguendo (without deciding) that the combined teachings of Miyoshi and Gore teach or suggests a delay spread and a predetermined maximum channel delay (as proffered by the Examiner), the Examiner has not established that any of the references teach or suggest determining whether the delay spread is smaller prior to the extracting and/or combining step. An Examiner cannot entirely ignore any limitation in a claim while determining whether the subject matter of the claim would have been obvious. In re Wilson, 484 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection of claims 25 and 35, nor the rejection of claims 26—29 and 36—39, which are dependent on claims 25 and 35, respectively. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of claims 25—29 and 35— 39. Claims 30 and 40 Appellants contend that “[njone of the paragraphs to which the Examiner refers disclose ‘summation’ of parts of ISI-free portions of GIs with corresponding portion of the respective symbols; nor do theses paragraphs disclose any averaging of such summation” (App. Br. 23). Appellants further contends that “[t]he ‘average operation’ disclosed by 6 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 Sheu is not applied or used in conjunction with combining GI portions . . . with symbol portions” {id. at 24). In response, the Examiner finds that “Miyoshi disclose[s] combining the extracted guard interval GI (ISI free) with corresponding portion of data . . . Sheu disclose[s] the symbol to symbol averaging . . . which [is] equal to the summing of effective OFDM symbols and guard intervals and averaging for each” (Ans. 10). We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. Sheu discloses that “[t]he symbol-by-symbol average operation is used to reduce the noise effects” (| 38). The Examiner has not shown or explained how Sheu’s symbol-by-symbol average operation includes summing symbols with GIs or is equal to the summing of symbols and guard intervals. Thus, we agree with Appellants that “the ‘average operation’ disclosed by Sheu is clearly applied on a symbol-to-symbol basis” {see Reply Br. 24), not an averaging of the summation of the extracted part of GI with the corresponding portion of said symbol. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection of claims 30 and 40. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 30 and 40. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 25—30 and 35—40. We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 21—24 and 31-34. 7 Appeal 2017-006278 Application 14/687,234 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-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation