11956757 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2014

11956757 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2014)

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. 11/956,757 12/14/2007 Kuan-i Li 15679.7 8082 21999 7590 09/26/2014 KIRTON MCCONKIE 60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE SUITE 1800 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 EXAMINER TRAN, KHANH C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2014 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 KUAN-I LI, ZONG-HUA YOU, and AN-BANG CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2012-008445 Application 11/956,757 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008445 Application 11/956,757 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1– 7, 11–17, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to satellite signal interference handling. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) satellite signal handling method comprising steps of: receiving a GNSS satellite signal; calculating correlation results of a plurality of code chip hypotheses for a specific Doppler bin; and analyzing said correlation results to determining whether said specific Doppler bin is polluted with interference. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Simic US 2006/0222058 A1 Oct. 5, 2006 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–7, 11, 12, 17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a) as being anticipated by Simic. Claims 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Simic. Appeal 2012-008445 Application 11/956,757 3 ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection Appellants contend: According to Claim 1, correlation results of multiple code chip hypotheses are calculated for one specific Doppler bin and analyzed to determin[e] whether the specific Doppler bin is polluted. The correlation results are calculated and analyzed individually for all specific Doppler bins to determine whether they are polluted with interference or not. In contrast, Simic disclose[s] that the peaks of all Doppler bins are found first, and then the peaks of each bin are listed by energy in decreasing order of magnitude to find the first maximum peak of each bin (see paragraphs [0086]–[0092] of Simic). (Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants because the argument presented is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 requires calculating correlation results for at least one Doppler bin—the “specific Doppler bin”—before analyzing the correlation results, but does not preclude calculating correlation results for multiple Doppler bins before analyzing the correlation results. In other words, claim 1 does not require performing the whole method of claim 1 on a single Doppler bin before moving on to perform the method on another Doppler bin; rather, it encompasses performing the correlating step on a number of Doppler bins before performing the analyzing step. This interpretation is consistent with the narrower dependent claim 11 which recites “wherein correlation results of code chip hypotheses for a plurality of specific Doppler bins are calculated at the same time.” Claim 1 must also encompass this feature by virtue of its inclusion in dependent claim 11. Appeal 2012-008445 Application 11/956,757 4 Accordingly, Appellants’ argument that Simic describes finding peaks of multiple Doppler bins before finding the first maximum peak for each bin (Br. 10–11) is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2–7 and 11 not specifically argued separately. Although Appellants argue claim 12 separately, the argument presented is similar to the argument discussed above regarding claim 1 (see Br. 12). We are, therefore, also not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, and claims 17 and 22 not specifically argued separately. The Obviousness Rejection Appellants present no additional arguments for claims 13–16, but rather rely on the same argument presented for claim 12 (Br. 12). That argument is not persuasive, as discussed above, and thus we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13–16. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–7, 11, 12, 17, and 22. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13–16. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 11– 17, and 22 are affirmed. Appeal 2012-008445 Application 11/956,757 5 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 dw