Ex Parte Moloudi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2014

11005837 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 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.
11/005,837 12/07/2004 Shervin Moloudi 3875.0200001 8809
26111 7590 02/19/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
MILORD, MARCEAU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2014 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 SHERVIN MOLOUDI
_____________

Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 7, 11 through 18, and 22.
We affirm-in-part.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of signal processing where the
spectral content of the noise profile is analyzed and at least one harmonic is
Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837

2

filtered out. See Specification 4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention
and reproduced below:
1. A method for processing a signal with a corresponding noise
profile, the method comprising:
analyzing spectral content of the noise profile;
filtering at least one noise harmonic within the signal
based on said analyzed spectral content; and
amplifying said filtered signal.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 7, 11 through 18, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhodzishsky (US 6,219,376
B1; Apr. 17, 2001) and Richards (US 6,577,691 B2; June 10, 2003).1
Answer 4-9.2

ISSUES
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 12, 14 through 16, and 18
Appellant argues on pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief, and pages
4 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 12 is in error. The issues raised by these arguments are:

1 We note that the statement of the rejection on page 4 of the Answer
identifies claims 9 and 10 as also rejected. We consider this to be a
typographical error as the Examiner has also indicated claims 9 and 10 as
allowable on page 10 of the Answer.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 14,
2010, Reply Brief dated March 7, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 6, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837

3

1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhodzishsky
and Richards teaches filtering at least one noise harmonic within
the signal based upon the analyzed spectral content?
2) Did the Examiner provide an articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support the conclusion of obviousness?
Appellant asserts that the rejection of dependent claims 3 through 7,
11, 14 through 16, and 18 is in error for the same reason as claims 1 and 12.
Brief 8, 10, 12-14.

Claims 2 and 13
Appellant argues on pages 8 through 9 of the Appeal Brief, and pages
6 through 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 is in
error. The issue raised by these arguments is:
3) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhodzishsky
and Richards teaches that the noise profile is a phase noise profile?
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 13 present us with the same
issue as presented with respect to claim 2. Brief 11-12.

Claim 17
Appellant argues on page 13 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 7 through
8 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 is in error.
The issue raised by these arguments is:
4) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhodzishsky
and Richards teaches a modulator that modulates the signal prior to
filtering?

Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837

4

Claim 22
Appellant argues on pages 14 through 15 of the Appeal Brief, and
pages 8 through 9 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of claim
22 is in error. The issue raised by these arguments is:
5) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Zhodzishsky
and Richards teaches the spectral content comprises one or both of
an input noise spectrum or an output noise spectrum?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 12, 14 through 18, and 22;
however, we concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2 and 13.

Claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 12, 14 through 16, and 18
With respect to the first issue, the Examiner, in response to
Appellant’s arguments, has cited numerous passages in Zhodzishsky to
support the finding that the prior art teaches filtering at least one noise
harmonic within the signal based upon the analyzed spectral content.
Answer 10-11. We have reviewed Zhodzishsky, and find there is ample
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding.
With respect to the second issue, on pages 12 through 13 of the
Answer, the Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments, has provided a
more detailed rationale for combining features of the references. We concur
Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837

5

with the Examiner’s reasoning and note the combination represents nothing
more than using known methods to perform their known functions.
These are the only two issues raised by Appellant’s arguments
directed to the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 12, 14 through 16, and
18. As the arguments directed to these issues have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7,
11, 12, 14 through 16, and 18.

Claims 2 and 13
With respect to the third issue, the Examiner, in response to
Appellant’s arguments, cited numerous passages in Zhodzishsky to support
the finding that the prior art teaches phase noise profile. Answer 11. We
have reviewed the cited portions of Zhodzishsky and the Examiner’s
rationale, and it is not clear to us how the Examiner is interpreting
Zhodzishsky to teach the claimed phase noise profile. Thus, the Examiner
has not demonstrated that the combination of the references teaches this
feature and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 13,
which recite such a feature.

Claim 17
With respect to the fourth issue, the Examiner, in response to
Appellant’s arguments, cited numerous passages in Zhodzishsky to support
the finding of a modulator that modulates the signal prior to filtering.
Answer 11-12. We have reviewed Zhodzishsky and find there is ample
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding. Further, Appellant’s assertion,
on page 8 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner admits that modulation
Appeal 2011-009312
Application 11/005,837

6

occurs prior to the processing in Figure 2 (where the filtering occurs), has
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding; rather, it seems to
support the Examiner’s finding. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 17.

Claim 22
With respect to the fifth issue, the Examiner, in response to
Appellant’s arguments, cited numerous passages in Zhodzishsky to support
the finding that spectral content comprises one or both of an input noise
spectrum or an output noise spectrum. Answer 12. We have reviewed
Zhodzishsky and find there is ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.

DECISION
We affirmthe Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 11, 12, 14
through 18, and 22.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 13.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 7, 11 through
18, and 22 is affirmed-in-part.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

bab