Lantiq Beteiligungs-GmbH & CO.KG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020002975 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2021)

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.
15/558,001 09/13/2017 Rainer Strobel LP1971PC00-
US_INT200606WO
6871
148528 7590 09/27/2021
2SPL
Patent Attorneys
Landaubogen 3
Munich, 81373
GERMANY
EXAMINER
VARNDELL, ROSS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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):
Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
mail@2spl.de
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAINER STROBEL and VLADIMIR OKSMAN
________________

Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 24‒33, 35, 37‒41, and 43‒47.1 Claims 34 and 36 are
objected to as depending on rejected base claim 24, but are otherwise
indicated as allowable. See Final Act. 12. Accordingly, these claims are not
before us on appeal. Claims 1‒23 and 42 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 11,
15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lantiq Deutschland GmbH as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to methods for crosstalk avoidance in a
data transmission system. Spec. 1:5‒7. Claim 24 is illustrative of the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
24. A method for crosstalk avoidance in a data transmission
system, the method comprising:
separating lines of the data transmission system at least
into a first group of one or more lines, a second group of one or
more lines, and a third group of one or more lines;
controlling transmissions on lines of the first group to
occur at different times than transmissions on lines of the
second group by:
configuring at least a first time interval and a
second time interval which does not overlap the first time
interval;
assigning transmissions on the lines of the first
group to the first time interval;
assigning transmissions on the lines of the second
group to the second time interval;
controlling transmissions on lines of the third group to
occur at the same time with transmissions on the lines of the
first group; and
controlling transmissions on the lines of the third group
to occur at the same time with transmissions on the lines of the
second group.

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 24‒29, 31, 33, 35, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Strobel (US 2016/0119025 A1; Apr. 28, 2016),
Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001

3

Kerpez (US 2016/0028434 A1; Jan. 28, 2016), and Goodson (US
2015/0381233 A1; Dec. 31, 2015). Final Act. 5‒9, 10‒11.
Claims 30, 32, 39‒41, and 43‒47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Strobel, Kerpez, Goodson, and Liu2 (US 2004/0096052
A1; May 20, 2004). See Final Act. 9, 11, 12.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 24 because
Goodson teaches away from the disclosure of Strobel. See Appeal Br. 4‒9;
Reply Br. 1‒8. In particular, Appellant argues Strobel teaches controlling
transmissions on lines of a third group to occur at the same times as on lines
of a first group and a second group. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues Goodson
teaches two distinct, mutually exclusive embodiments: a first embodiment
illustrated in Figures 2‒4 and a second embodiment illustrated in Figure 5.
Id. Appellant argues that in the first embodiment, Goodson teaches assigning
transmissions on first and second groups to occur at first and second non-
overlapping times. Id. at 6‒7. Appellant argues Goodson teaches that a rule
is enforced such that no two vector groups of lines are permitted to transmit
at the same time in this first embodiment. Id. (citing Goodson ¶ 19).
Appellant argues that the second embodiment includes two operating
modes, normal operation interval (NOI) mode and discontinuous operation
interval (DOI) mode. Reply Br. 6 (citing Goodson ¶¶ 50‒55). Appellant
argues that in NOI mode, all vectoring groups may transmit at the same
time. Id. Appellant argues that in DOI mode, no two vectoring groups may
transmit at the same time. Id. Appellant argues that it is clear from these

2 The Examiner refers Liu by the inventor’s first name, Dongtai. See Final
Act. 9, 11, 12.
Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001

4

teachings that NOI and DOI modes are mutually exclusive, such that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined modes and would not
have combined Goodson’s NOI mode with Strobel’s teachings. Id. at 6‒7.
Appellant argues that considering the teachings of Goodson regarding
these two embodiments as a whole, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
consider Goodson to teach away from the proposed combination because
assigning transmission on lines of the third group to occur simultaneously to
lines of the first and second group, as taught by Strobel, directly contravenes
the rule set forth in Goodson which prohibits such functionality. Appeal
Br. 7.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Strobel teaches controlling transmission on lines of the
third group to occur at the same time as transmissions on lines of the first
group and second group. Final Act. 7 (citing Strobel ¶¶ 27‒30). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Goodson teaches configuring a first time
interval (for transmission on lines of a first group) and a second time interval
(for transmission on lines of a second group), where these two intervals do
not overlap. Id. (citing Goodson Figs. 2‒5).
Appellant’s argument that Goodson teaches away from the proposed
combination is not persuasive because it does not consider the teachings of
Goodson as a whole. That is, Goodson teaches a first embodiment, disclosed
in Figures 2‒4, wherein vectoring groups generally transmit on non-
overlapping time intervals. See Goodson ¶¶ 38‒45. However, Goodson also
teaches that in some instances two vectoring groups may be scheduled to
transmit simultaneously in this embodiment. See Goodson ¶ 47 (“In some
instances, it is possible that two different vectoring group . . . can actually
Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001

5

have very little crosstalk coupling between them. In some implementations,
the two vectoring groups that have little crosstalk between them can be
considered as a single combined group (at least as far as the crosstalk
avoidance scheme was concerned). As such, the two groups can be
scheduled to transmit simultaneously.”). Thus, although Goodson teaches
that “in some instances, a rule can be enforced that no two vectoring groups
can transmit simultaneously . . . to avoid crosstalk between transmissions on
the different vectoring groups” (Goodson ¶ 34), Goodson also contemplates
that in this embodiment, certain groups may also be scheduled to transmit
simultaneously. Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Goodson
does not teach away from the proposed combination.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 24.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 39 and 44,
which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal
Br. 4‒9. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 25‒
33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, and 45‒47, for which Appellant relies on the same
arguments. See id.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24‒29, 31,
33, 35, 37,
38
103 Strobel, Kerpez,
Goodson
24‒29, 31,
33, 35, 37,
38

30, 32, 39‒
41, 43‒47
103 Strobel, Kerpez,
Goodson, Liu
30, 32, 39‒
41, 43‒47

Overall
Outcome
24‒33, 35,
37‒41, 43‒
47

Appeal 2020-002975
Application 15/558,001

6

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED