Ex Parte Mottier et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 8, 2012

10815724 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 8, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID MOTTIER and DAMIEN CASTELAIN
____________________

Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and KALYAN
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12. Claims 2, 8, 13, and 14 were cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method for
significantly compensating for alterations caused to a communication
channel due to movement of a mobile transceiver (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary claims and are reproduced below:
1. A method for transmitting data in a telecommunication
system that includes at least a first transceiver and a second
transceiver linked together by means of at least one communication
channel, at least one of the transceivers being mobile, the method
comprising:
spreading said data over a plurality of components; and
an equalization step of multiplying each of the components
resulting from the spreading step by a corresponding predetermined
equalization value representative of communication conditions within
the communication channel,
wherein at least one predetermined equalization value is
determined so as to account for a Doppler effect resulting from a
movement of the mobile transceiver, which adversely affects the
communication conditions within the communication channel,
wherein each predetermined equalization value is calculated using an
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

3
equation that includes a parameter representative of a noise level in
said communication channel and an additional noise variance
representative of said Doppler effect.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
communication conditions within the communication channel are
modeled by means of a study of the effects of said conditions on at
least one incoming signal previously received by the mobile
transceiver through said communication channel; and
the additional noise variance representative of said Doppler
effect increases with an amount of time elapsed since said incoming
signal has been received by the mobile transceiver.

Prior Art
Agee US 2003/0123384 A1 Jul. 3, 2003
Banerjee US 7,286,593 B1 Oct. 23, 2007
Zhao US 2005/0018641 A1 Jan. 27, 2005

Rejections
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12.
(See App. Br. 6-12).
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

4
Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we separately address claim 3.
(See App. Br. 12-13).
We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Agee, Banerjee,
and Zhao (App. Br. 6-13).
Issue 1a
Specifically, Appellants contend Agee does not disclose:
“predetermined equalization values, wherein each predetermined
equalization value is calculated using an equation that includes a parameter
representative of a noise level in the communication channel and an
additional noise variance representative of the Doppler effect” or
“explicitly disclose multiplying components resulting from a
spreading step by corresponding predetermined equalization values” (App.
Br. 7-8).
The Examiner finds Agee teaches or suggests predetermined
equalization values, wherein each predetermined equalization value is
calculated using an equation that includes a parameter representative of a
noise level in the communication channel and an additional noise variance
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

5
(Ans. 11). Further, the Examiner finds that the combination of Agee and
Banerjee teaches or suggests channel weighting coefficients caused by
additive noise and variation in the channel for applying despreader weight
and weighting coefficients (Ans. 12-13).
Issue 1a: Does Agee teach or suggest “spreading said data over a
plurality of components” and “an equalization step of multiplying each of
the components…by a corresponding predetermined equalization value
representative of communication conditions within the communication
channel” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
our own. We also add, for further emphasis, that Appellants’ own
Specification states the first two limitations of the recited method has been
described in a previous published IEEE publication (Spec. 1, ll. 1-19).

Issue 1b
Appellants argue Zhao does not disclose determining equalization
values that are used to multiply each of the components resulting from a
spreading step but instead produces an optimal average interval of channel
estimation or window length (App. Br. 10-11). Additionally, Appellants
contend the Doppler shift estimation of Zhao is not a variance, a well-known
term in statistics that would have particular meaning to one of ordinary skill
in the art (App. Br. 11).

Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

6
The Examiner finds Zhao discloses a channel estimation method and
apparatus which estimates instantaneous channel coefficient that includes a
parameter representative of a noise level and noise variance representative of
Doppler effects (Ans. 11). According to the Examiner, Equations 3-7 of
Zhao disclose closely related equations that teach “each predetermined
equalization value is calculated using an equation that includes a parameter
representative of a noise level in said communication channel and an
additional noise variance representative of said Doppler effect” (id.). The
Examiner then finds the window length P that includes variance of Gaussian
White Noise (Equation 7) and estimated white noises are part of estimated
instantaneous channel coefficient (Equations 3 and 4) (Ans. 11). Therefore,
the Examiner finds the combination teaches or suggest the disputed
limitation.

Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding Zhao discloses “wherein
each predetermined equalization value is calculated using an equation that
includes a parameter representative of a noise level in said communication
channel and an additional noise variance representative of said Doppler
effect” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. We further emphasize the following points.
Appellants appear to be arguing the references individually. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

7
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner is
relying on Zhao to teach or suggest that a parameter representative of a noise
level in the communication channel and a parameter representative of
additional noise variance representative of the Doppler effect are used in the
calculation of an equalization value (Ans. 5-6 and 9-12). By Appellants’
own admission, compensating for distortions generated by a communication
channel performed beforehand are known (Spec. 1). Banerjee also teaches
compensating for communication conditions (Abstract). Specifically,
Banerjee teaches compensating for channel variations due to Doppler effects
caused by motion and signal-to-interference (SIR) level changes used (col.
1, ll. 28-59). Thus, Banerjee teaches or suggests determining an equalization
value based on SIR and Doppler frequency.
The Examiner relies on Zhao for teaching or suggesting that both a
parameter representative of a noise level in the communication channel
(Additive White Gaussian Noise) and a parameter representative of an
additional noise variance representative of said Doppler effect (Doppler
shift) are used through a series of equations to determine the channel
estimation (Ans. 5-6 and 9-12).
Appellants’ argument that Zhao does not teach a parameter
representative of an additional noise variance representative of a Doppler
effect (App. Br. 10-11) is not persuasive. Appellants have not explicitly
defined variance in their Specification and thus, we adopt a broad but
reasonable interpretation - “change”. Appellants’ Specification is not in
contradiction to this interpretation. Indeed, Appellants point to the two
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

8
disclosed equations for calculating predetermined equalization values as
disclosing this limitation – “an additional noise variance representative of
said Doppler effect (ơd2)” (App. Br. 3-4). Indeed, Appellants’ Specification
discloses two equations for determining an equalization value Wi(j) that
include “an additionnal [sic] noise parameter ơd2 representative of said
Doppler effect” (Spec. 7, l. 8 – Spec. 8, l. 3). In light of Appellants’
Specification and the Examiner’s findings and reasoning (Ans. 11), we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Zhao discloses a
parameter representative of an additional noise change representative of the
Doppler effect.

Issue 1c
Appellants next argue Banerjee teaches away from the present
invention since Banerjee discloses “‘there is no need for a Doppler estimator
or a per finger SIR estimator’ and that ‘the filter structure does not change
with changes in ... Doppler and SIR’” (App. Br. 9). Appellants assert that
although Banerjee teaches that the invention will perform comparatively
sub-optimally at particular Doppler value and SIR settings, Banerjee
discloses that the invention will give the best performance for the ensemble
average for all Doppler settings and that performance simulations
demonstrate acceptable performance at the entire range of expected Doppler
frequencies (App. Br. 9).
Appellants also contend the three references, Agee, Banerjee, and
Zhao, would not have been combined because Agee does not teach or
suggest use of a RAKE receiver (App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

9
The Examiner finds Banerjee’s disclosure of a channel estimator for
determining channel weighing coefficients for spread spectrum
communication systems is in the field of the present invention and is
reasonably pertinent to the Doppler estimation with which the Appellants
was concerned (Ans. 13-14). Additionally, the Examiner asserts Banerjee
does not constitute a teaching away since the disclosure does not criticize,
discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (Ans. 13).
The Examiner finds “it would have been obvious to one skilled at the
time the invention was made to further utilize channel estimation with
Doppler effects as taught in Banerjee and Zhao to improve received signal
quality and optimal receiving performance” (Ans. 10).

Issue 1c: Did the Examiner err in concluding the Banerjee reference
does not teach away from the present invention and err in improperly
combining the references?

ANALYSIS
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.’ Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta
Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). A
reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for
an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

10
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
We agree with the Examiner. We further note that Banerjee does
teach or suggest that a range of Doppler frequencies and the Doppler effect
is taken into account in the apparatus and method taught by Banerjee (see
e.g., SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION). Moreover, Appellants claims do
not recite a “Doppler estimator” but instead recite that each “predetermined
equalization value is calculated using an equation that includes a parameter
representative of … an additional noise variance representative of said
Doppler effect” (Claim 1). Accordingly, Appellants have not shown
Banerjee teaches away from using the Doppler effect as part of an equation
for calculating a predetermined equalization value.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
the techniques of Banerjee and Zhao into the system of Agee.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in concluding the references
were properly combined.
As a result, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao would have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited independent claim 7. Claims 4-6 and 9-12, not
separately argued, thus fall with their respective independent claims. We
also are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining the references or
finding one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the references. As a result, the Examiner did not err in rejecting
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

11
claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Agee,
Banerjee, and Zhao.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claim 3
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Agee, Banerjee,
and Zhao because neither Banerjee nor Zhao teach or suggest “the additional
noise variance representative of said Doppler effect increases with an
amount of time elapsed since the incoming signal has been received by the
mobile transceiver” (App. Br. 12-13).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Banerjee and Zhao would have taught or suggested “the additional noise
variance representative of said Doppler effect increases with an amount of
time elapsed since said incoming signal has been received by the mobile
transceiver” as recited in claim 3?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 12-13). The
Examiner has not shown that either Banerjee or Zhao, taken alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests the additional noise variance representative
of the Doppler Effect increases with time elapsed. Accordingly, the
Examiner has not persuaded us that Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao, taken alone
or in proper combination would have taught or suggested the invention as
Appeal 2010-000121
Application 10/815,724

12
recited in claim 3. Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Agee, Banerjee, and Zhao is reversed.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj