Ex Parte CarlsonDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 27, 201209882100 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation