Ex Parte Carlson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

09882100 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

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.
09/882,100 06/15/2001 Arthur J. Carlson 3875.0010001 7713
26111 7590 07/30/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BOCURE, TESFALDET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARTHUR J. CARLSON

Appeal 2011-007440
Application 09/882,100
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and system in an
Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) modem system for efficient
transmission of symbols by determining line speed, setting a threshold and
Appeal 2011-007440
Application 09/882,100
2
then transmitting symbols using a multiple of some predetermined number
of bits per symbol if the data rate is above the threshold and allowing
symbols to be formed using any integer number of bits per symbol if the
data rate is below the threshold. See Spec. 3.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of restricting symbol size in an ADSL system
comprising:

obtaining a data rate during initialization;

comparing the data rate to a threshold;

forming symbols using a multiple of a predetermined
number of bits per symbol if the data rate is above the
threshold; and

allowing symbols to be formed using any integer number
of bits per symbol if the data rate is below the threshold.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Hardy US 5,781,598 Jul. 14, 1998
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (Hereinafter “AAPA”)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
unpatentable over AAPA and Hardy. Ans. 3-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 30,
2010; the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 7, 2010; and the Reply
Brief filed February 7, 2011.
Appeal 2011-007440
Application 09/882,100
3
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:

Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22 by
finding that transmitting data utilizing either a character mode or a packet
mode based upon a comparison of the originating data rate with a threshold
data rate, as disclosed by Hardy, teaches or suggests forming symbols using
a predetermined number of bits per symbol if the data rate is above a
threshold and allowing symbols to be formed using any integer number of
bits per symbol if the data rate is below the threshold?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Hardy fails to teach “forming symbols using a
multiple of a predetermined number of bits per second if the data rate is
above the threshold; and allowing symbols to be formed using any integer
number of bits per symbol if the data rate is below the threshold.” App. Br.
6-7, Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds that Hardy teaches determining if the data rate is
above or below the threshold and thereafter transmitting in a character mode
or a packet mode in response to that determination. Further, the Examiner
finds, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, that the
“character mode” and “packet mode” meet the requirement of Appellant’s
claims. Ans. 4, 6.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2011-007440
Application 09/882,100
4
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

We find that Appellant’s claim language is sufficiently broad that we
find no apparent differentiation, for example, between Appellant’s
penultimate limitation of claim 1 and the final limitation of that claim. That
is, a “multiple of a predetermined number of bits” could very well be
numerically equal to “any integer number of bits,” and consequently we find
Appellant’s claims are suggested by the Hardy teaching of transmitting
characters or packets, based upon the data rate comparison with a threshold,
since the characters or symbols in Hardy presumably contain an identical
number of bits during each form of transmission.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 and claims 2-22, which were not separately argued
with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb