Ex Parte Beek

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2015

13462507 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/462,507
93823 7590
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/02/2012 Jaap Van De Beek
12/31/2015
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.
13674-792 (Client Ref. No 5517
EXAMINER
FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAAP VAN DE BEEK
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellant identifies Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed May 2, 2012 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2012 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed June 28, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 7,
2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 9, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a spectral shaping of multicarrier signals
useful for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) or other
multicarrier systems. Spec. i-f 50; Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for generating a multi carrier signal
representing data symbols, said multi carrier signal being a
linear combination of subcarriers, the method comprising:
modulating, in a processor, base signals with said data
symbols, wherein each one of said base signals is a weighted
sum of said subcarriers and each one of said subcarriers is
weighted by an element of a weighting vector,
wherein the multiplication of a constraint matrix and the
weighting vector results in an all-zero vector,
wherein said constraint matrix represents constraints
limiting a magnitude of a Fourier transform of said multicarrier
signal at frequencies outside a designated bandwidth.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-22, and 24--26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Jaap van de Beek & Fredrik Berggren, N-
Continuous OFDM, 13: 1 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS 1 (2009)
(herein after "van de Beek"). Final Act. 2--4.
R2. Claims 5, 16, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on van de Beek. Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Examiner's Answer. We concur with the decisions
2
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Rejection RI
Claim 1
Issue 1: Diagonal Matrix versus Diagonal Vector
Appellant argues the Examiner erred by finding that the following
notation of the van de Beek3 reference is a diagonal vector, and not a
diagonal matrix:
_ d" ( jx = O} (or null space) shown in gray.
Appellant argues the van de Beek reference fails to teach a weighting
vector residing in a null space. More specifically, with reference to van de
3 The author of the cited reference appears to be the inventor of the claimed
invention.
3
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
Beek's Figure 2, Appellant argues the weighting vector di does not reside in
the null space, whereas the weighting vector of the claimed invention does
so reside. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9. Under this distinction, Appellant
argues the van de Beek reference fails to disclose "each one of said
subcarriers is weighted by an element of a weighting vector residing in a
nullspace of a constraint matrix, wherein said constraint matrix represents
constraints limiting a magnitude of a Fourier transform of said multicarrier
signal at frequencies outside a designated bandwidth" as allegedly recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 10.
The Examiner states the claims do not recite "each one of said
subcarriers is weighted by an element of a weighting vector residing in a
nullspace ofa constraint matrix." Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim and, thus,
it is not persuasive.
The Examiner also notes that claim 1 instead recites "wherein the
multiplication of a constraint matrix and the weighting vector results in an
all-zero vector." Id. The Examiner indicates van de Beek's Equation 9,
which states di = (I - P)di + PH di_ 1 , referring to Figure 2, shows
(I - P)di is a vector in the nullspace, and PH di_ 1 , is a shift (or offset)
relative to the null space. The Examiner reasons the multiplication
(nullspace: Ax = 0) of a constraint matrix (A, equation 6) and the
weighting vector (diagonal vector ) results in an all-zero vector (I - P)di,
which meets the relevant recitations of the independent claims. 4 Id. (citing
4 Note that because the claims use the open-ended "comprising" transition,
the recited limitation does not preclude further operation with another
vector, matrix, or scalar, in addition to the constraint matrix and weighting
4
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
Van de Beek, Fig. 2; 2). The Examiner's findings and conclusion have not
been persuasively rebutted by Appellant. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred.
Issue 3: Modulating Base Signals with Data Symbols, each Base Signal a
Weighted Sum of Subcarriers, and each Subcarrier Weighted by an Element
of a Weighting Vector
Appellant argues the van de Beek reference fails to disclose the
limitation of claim 1 stating "modulating, in a processor, base signals with
said data symbols, wherein each one of said base signals is a weighted sum
of said subcarriers and each one of said subcarriers is weighted by an
element of a weighting vector." App. Br. 10. Appellant contends this is so
because the van de Beek reference does not disclose that the element of the
set {x: Ax = O} is used to weight subcarriers in a weighted sum. Id.
The Examiner states van de Beek teaches modulating, in a processor,
. k -
base signals (e12rrr/) with the data symbols (dk,i) (Equation 3); each of the
base signals is a weighted sum ( LkcKkneFPkd,k,i) (Equation 4) of the
subcarriers (K={k0, k1, ... , kK-d ); and each of the subcarriers is weighted
by an element of weighting vector (ejc/Jk) (Equation 4). Ans. 5. The
Examiner's correspondences between the teachings of van de Beek and the
claimed elements have not been effectively refuted by Appellant. Thus, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection.
vector, to produce an all-zero vector. See, e.g., lvfars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co.,
L l > 37'7 F' id 1169 1"'7 :- ('F' d c· '1004) -.. r-Jl - , . . , l • • , 1 ·- _ ) , _, 1 6 e . 1r. ,:, ( 1_t ie tr .. ms1t10na term
'comprising: ... is synonymous with 'including,' 'containing,' or
'characterized by,' [and] is open-ended and does not exclude additional,
unrecited elements or method steps" (quoting f\/fPEP; 9th ed., rev. 1
§ 2111.03 (2014)).
5
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
Claim 5
Issue 4: Examiner's Alleged Conclusory Statement Regarding Linear
Precoding
Appellant alleges van de Beek fails to disclose the linear precoding
recited in claim 5 and that the Examiner's determination of obviousness
under§ 103(a) is conclusory and unsupported. App. Br. 12.
The Examiner finds that van de Beek teaches linear precoding is
expressed by precoding matrix G (I - P (see van de Beek 1 ), where
P = cpH AH (AAH)- 1 AC/J). Ans. 5---6. The Examiner notes that substituting
P into the precoding matrix G results in
G =I - P =I - cpH AH (AAH)- 1 AC/J, which the Examiner indicates is
similar to the claimed G = I - AH (AAH)- 1 A. Id. The Examiner finds one
of ordinary skill in the art could have readily separated the weighting vector
C/J from the precoding matrix G to produce the claimed relation because
simple mathematical manipulation would involve only routine skill in the
art.
In their Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates their Appeal Brief arguments
without rebutting the Examiner's findings regarding the precoding matrix of
claim 5. The Examiner's findings and correspondences of elements of van
de Beek to those claimed are not persuasively refuted by Appellant, and we
sustain the rejection of claim 5 for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
Remaining Claims
Independent claims 11, 19, and 26 are argued on the same basis as
claim 1 and for the reasons stated with regard to that claim, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in their rejection.
6
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
Dependent claims 16 and 23 are argued on the same basis as claim 5
and, thus, we similarly conclude they are obvious for the reasons stated with
respect to claim 5.
No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent
claims. Thus, for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims,
we sustain the rejection of the remaining claims. See In re King, 801 F.2d
1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir.
1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's
Appeal Brief. 5
5 In the event of further prosecution, Appellant and the Examiner may wish
to consider whether the claims 1-26 are compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and sixth paragraphs.
An invention may be defined entirely by its functions, but only when
elements are claimed in combination. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
("[a Jn element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or
step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure,
material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to
cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof') (emphasis added).
For example, claims 11 and 26 each recite a single "means" associated
with several functions. Claims 1 and 11 each recite a single "step." The
Appellant and Examiner should consider whether claims 1-26 pass muster
under§ 112, first paragraph because each claim is directed to a single
7
Appeal2014-002700
Application 13/462,507
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-22, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) based on van de Beek is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on van de Beek is affirmed.
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
ACP
"means" or a single "step." See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("single means" claims are properly rejected under the first paragraph
of§ 112).
8