Ex Parte Nayler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2007

10002185 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte Colin D. Nayler
___________

Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
Technology Center 2600
___________

ON BRIEF
___________

Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134 from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-13, which are all of the claims pending in this
application.
We REVERSE.

BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to an arrangement for initializing digital
equalizer settings based on comparing digital equalizer outputs to prescribed
equalizer outputs. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method in a physical layer transceiver coupled to a
prescribed network medium having an undetermined length, the
method comprising:
supplying a prescribed initial set of equalizer settings to
a digital feedforward equalizer, the digital feedforward
equalizer configured for outputting equalized signal samples
based on equalizing retrieved signal samples, having
encountered intersymbol interference by transmission via the
prescribed network medium, according to supplied equalizer
settings;
comparing the equalized signal samples relative to a
prescribed equalization threshold; and
selectively changing the supplied equalizer settings,
based on the comparing step, until the equalized signal samples
reach the prescribed equalization threshold.
PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Lo et al. (Lo) 6,097,767 Aug. 1, 2000

Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated
by Lo.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the Examiner's answer (mailed Apr. 27, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to Appellant’s brief (filed Feb. 7, 2006) and
reply brief (filed Jun. 21, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends that Lo does
not teach the claimed selectively changing the equalizer settings until the
equalized signal samples reach the prescribed equalization threshold (Br. 7).
We agree with Appellant and find that Lo teaches successively using a
number of sets of settings for the phase lock loop (PLL) and the results from
each of the sets of settings are used to evaluate and determine the optimum
settings for the PLL. Hence, we cannot agree with the Examiner that Lo
teaches “selectively changing” the sets since there is no selectivity taught by
Lo, but only a successive sequence. Therefore, all the sets are used and

1 We note that the Examiner only indicated claims 1-9 were rejected in the statement of the rejection, but
clearly included rejections of claims 1-13 in the body of the rejection. Therefore, we will address
the rejection of all the claims.

Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
4
there is no endpoint which would teach the “until” limitation. The sets
would always use the same sets and end with the same last set thereby not
teaching “selectively changing . . . until . . . threshold.”
Additionally, we find no teaching of a “threshold” in Lo since there is
no comparison to determine the endpoint of the selectively changing
settings. The Examiner’s reliance upon the optimum being the threshold is
unreasonable in our view. We find no comparison after the optimum is
determined so that Lo cannot teach the use of the threshold in the comparing
step. Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
its dependent claims 2-5, 10, and 11. Similarly, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 6 and its dependent claims for the same
reasons.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have reversed the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.

Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
5

REVERSED

JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOESPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )

JD/gw

Appeal No. 2006-3228
Application No. 10/002,185
6

MANELLI DENISON & SELTER
2000 M STREET NW SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-3307