Ex Parte LIU

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

14809948 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/809,948 07/27/2015
64728 7590 12/04/2018
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD A VENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DANIEL N. LIU
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.
NGC-00158(006825-0030) 9900
EXAMINER
LUGO,DAVIDB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
CCARDINALE@SLK-LA W.COM
tlopez@slk-law.com
c golupski@ slk-law. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL N. LIU
Appeal 2018-005123
Application 14/809 ,948 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-20, which are all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 10 and 11 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Northrop Grumman
Systems Corp. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005123
Application 14/809,948
INVENTION
Appellant's application relates to pre-coding a digital signal in a
transmitter associated with a digital communications system to remove non-
linear distortions. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject
matter and reads as follows, with disputed limitations shown in italics:
1. A method for non-linear pre-coding a single carrier digital
signal in a transmitter associated with a digital communications
system to remove non-linear distortions in a transmitted signal,
said method comprising:
converting digital bits to be transmitted to a transmit
constellation including symbols each defining a plurality of the
bits;
subtracting a revised pre-coded constellation from the
transmit constellation to provide a current pre-coded
constellation;
performing a modulo operation on the current pre-coded
constellation to limit the number of symbols that are transmitted
at any particular point in time;
modeling the current pre-coded constellation after the
modulo operation using a non-linear model to provide the revised
pre-coded constellation, wherein modeling the current pre-coded
constellation includes using a non-linear combination of
different non-linear models where the different non-linear
models are independent of each other and are simultaneously
present during the modeling, wherein the non-linear combination
of the different non-linear models includes directly evaluating a
non-linear function with each of the non-linear models, and
wherein the non-linear function is a Taylor series, general power
series or any sub-set or combination of a Taylor series and
general power series;
filtering the current pre-coded constellation in a pulse-
shaping filter so as to interpolate a symbol sequence in the
constellation and shape the constellation;
converting the shaped pre-coded constellation to an analog
signal to be transmitted; and
2
Appeal 2018-005123
Application 14/809,948
amplifying the analog signal in a high power amplifier for
transmission.
REJECTI0N2
Claims 1-9 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a),
written description. Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-9 and 12-20 under 35 USC§ l 12(a)
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding that the claims fail
to comply with the written description requirement. App. Br. 9. Appellant
argues that, in light of at least paragraphs 3 7--40 of the Specification, an
artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that independent non-linear
models may be used in such a method as that claimed. App. Br. 9-10.
The Examiner found the limitations added through amendment are not
supported by the Specification as originally filed. Ans. 6. The Examiner
specifically found two (20 and 21) of the examples in the Specification do
not provide support for the amended claim language because each example
defines a non-linear equation which is a Taylor series expansion for a single
model. Ans. 7. The Examiner further found that, even if each term of the
Taylor series arguendo corresponded to a different non-linear model, each of
the terms of the Taylor series is not "'independent' as one skilled in the art
would understand the term, as they are derivatives of a single function (i.e.
/vatterra (a)) at a single point, according to the definition of Taylor series
expansion, and thus are related to one another." Ans. 8.
Our reviewing court guides that the written description "must clearly
allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
2 The Examiner has withdrawn all other previous rejections. Ans. 3--4.
3
Appeal 2018-005123
Application 14/809,948
invented what is claimed." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d
1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citation and quotations marks
omitted). "In other words, the applicant must 'convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she
was in possession of the invention,' and demonstrate that by disclosure in
the specification of the patent." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560
F.3d, 1366, 1371-72, (Fed. Circ. 2009) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)), vacated, 595 F.3d 1329
( emphasis added).
Here, we find the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to an
artisan that the inventor was in possession of the recited limitation "wherein
modeling the current pre-coded constellation includes using a non-linear
combination of different non-linear models where the different non-linear
models are independent of each other" ( claim 1). Appellant's Specification
specifically provides multiple different non-linear models and further
describes "any non-linear combination of the above non-linear functions
according to [the] Taylor series expansions can serve as the modeling in the
box 58." Spec. ,r 37; see also Spec. ,r,r 38, 39, 40. Moreover, Appellant's
Specification describes that in addition to the Volterra series, "[ s ]everal
other examples of non-linear modeling techniques are discussed below that
can replace the Volterra series modeling with the understanding that other
modeling techniques may also be available." Spec. ,r,r 26, 27.
"The written description requirement must be applied in the context
of the particular invention and state of the knowledge." Ariad, 560 F.3d at
1372 (quoting Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Paragraph 37 and equation (20) of the Appellant's Specification together
4
Appeal 2018-005123
Application 14/809,948
provide support for the disputed claim limitation, i.e., non-linear
functions/models that are independent and simultaneously present as
operands in a non-linear combination operation. For example, the Volterra
and Wiener functions described in the Specification are two independent
functions. Spec. ,r,r 32-37. Reading these paragraphs in light of the
description of different non-linear models being independent from each
other, we find that an artisan of ordinary skill would have understood that a
combination of different non-linear models can also be independent of each
other. Thus, we find that at least paragraphs 32--40 of the Specification
reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession
of the subject matter at issue as of the filing date.
Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the rejection of
claims 1-9 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 12-20.
REVERSED
5