Ex Parte Oksman

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2014

11500108 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte VLADIMIR OKSMAN
_____________

Appeal 2011-007043
Application 11/500,108
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, 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, 2, and 4 through 11. Claims 3, 21, and 22 have been canceled
and claims 12 through 20 and 23 through 26 have been withdrawn from
consideration.

We reverse.
Appeal 2011-007043
Application 11/500,108

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system to stabilize the performance of a
multi-carrier DSL system. The system involves bit loading at least one
channel using a reference signal to noise ratio which is based upon a
measured and a virtual signal to noise ratio. Appellant’s Specification 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A communication system, comprising:
a modem configured to be selectively coupled to a
communication line on which a plurality of channels can be
established;
wherein the modem is configured to receive a signal via
the communication line, and configured to calculate a bit
loading parameter for at least one of the plurality of channels
based on a virtual noise signal;
where the virtual noise signal is based on the power of
the signal as received at the modem, a deployment scenario, and
a characteristic of one of multiple different types of
analog front end that can transmit the signal to the modem.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Seagraves (US 2001/0031016 A1, Oct.
18, 2001). Answer 4-7.1
ISSUE
Appellant presents several arguments on pages 3 through 8 of the
Appeal Brief, directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 27,
2010, Reply Brief dated January 31, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on December 6, 2010.
Appeal 2011-007043
Application 11/500,108

3

and 6. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the
appeal is: did the Examiner err in finding Seagraves teaches calculating a
virtual noise signal based on the power of a received signal?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding Seagraves teaches calculating a virtual noise signal based on the
power of a received signal. Each of the independent claims 1 and 6 recites a
limitation directed to calculating a virtual noise in this manner. In response
to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cites to several paragraphs in
Seagraves to support this finding but does not provided any rationale or
mapping of what aspects of Seagraves meet the claimed virtual noise
calculated based upon a received power; nor is it readily apparent to us how
the claim elements are met by Seagraves’ teachings. Answer 7 and 8. Thus,
we do not consider the Examiner to have sufficiently demonstrated that
Seagraves anticipates the rejected claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11 is
reversed.

REVERSED
msc