Ex Parte Schaffner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2014

11764579 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TERRY M. SCHAFFNER
____________________

Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1 – 42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appellant has
identified related appeal 2012-005754 (S/N 11/764,597). (App. Br. 3).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
2
The claims are directed to a system and method for obtaining
frequency and time synchronization in a wideband communication system.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of measuring frequency offset in wideband
signals of bandwidth X within a communications system having
a coherency time constant of T, comprising:
generating a synchronization signal, wherein generating a
synchronization signal includes:
generating a first chirp signal that sweeps a portion
of bandwidth X; and
generating a second chirp signal to sweeps
approximately the same portion of bandwidth X but in
the opposite direction;
transmitting the synchronization signal;
receiving a wideband signal at a receiver;
generating a receiver chirp signal in the receiver;
detecting a first offset as a function of the first chirp
signal and the receiver chirp signal;
detecting a second offset as a function of the second
chirp signal and the receiver chirp signal; and
calculating the frequency offset as a function of the first
and second offsets.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Upton US 6,396,866 B1 May 28, 2002
Citta US 7,177,343 B1 Feb. 13, 2007
(Relied upon for evidence of Official Notice)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 27, 28, and 30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Upton. (Ans. 4).
Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
3
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16–26, 29, and 31–42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Upton. (Ans. 7).

ANALYSIS
Appellant has set forth a single heading for claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14,
15, 27, 28, and 30 and set forth no separate arguments for patentability based
upon obviousness for independent claims 18 and 35. (App. Br. 14
"Appellant has elected not to separately argue application of Upton to
dependent and other claims under § 103(a), as the same differences indicated
above apply"). Since Appellant has not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 18, 27, and 35, we will group
them as standing or falling together under their respective grounds of
rejection. We will address Appellant’s arguments with respect to
representative independent claim 1 based upon anticipation.

Anticipation

Appellant contends that the claimed invention is directed to
"wideband system, such as the spread spectrum system described on p. 2, ln.
26-27. More specifically, the chirp signal sweeps across a wide band or
spectrum, as described in the example on p. 3, ln. 4-7, rather than a very
narrow spectrum as is employed in Upton." (App. Br. 13). Appellant
furthers contend that:
The receiver of the claimed system further correlates a
receiver-generated chirp signal with the received unmodulated
chirp signal, as described on p. 4, ln. 27-30, and illustrated in
Figure 1. Appellant notes that this is described in the claims in
Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
4
the steps of detecting first and second offsets between chirp
signals received and the receiver chirp signal, distinguishing the
claims from the Upton reference, in which a fixed frequency
signal is matched to a specific point in the chirp signal.

(App. Br. 13). Finally, Appellant contends that:

Appellant respectfully points out that the pending claims as
amended in prosecution now explicitly recite limitations such
as "detecting a first offset as a function of the first chirp signal
and the receiver chirp signal" and "detecting a second offset as
a function of the second chirp signal and the receiver chirp
signal," thereby explicitly reciting and explaining derivation of
the first and second offsets not found in Upton. Further, they
also recite "calculating the frequency offset as a function of the
first and second offsets," explaining how the frequency offsets
are calculated from first and second offsets, which is not found
in Upton.

(App. Br. 13). The Examiner has addressed Appellant’s arguments and
identified how the Upton reference teaches and fairly suggests the chirp
signal sweeps across a wideband or spectrum with the use of a noise signal
(PN code). (Ans. 14 – 15). The Examiner further addresses Appellant’s
arguments regarding the first and second offsets. (Ans. 14 – 15). Finally,
the Examiner addresses Appellant’s argument regarding calculating the
frequency offset as a function of the first and second offsets. (Ans. 15). We
agree with the Examiner's findings and adopt them as our own.
Appellant has not identified any express definition of wideband or
their desired spectrum with which to differentiate from the spectrum of the
Upton reference. Nor has Appellant filed a Reply Brief to specifically
address the Examiner's responses, and Appellant relies upon the general
arguments for patentability. We find Appellant’s arguments to be
Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
5
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's finding of anticipation of
representative independent claim 1.

Obviousness

Appellant has set forth no separate arguments for patentability with
respect to obviousness. We find Appellant’s anticipation arguments to be
unpersuasive as applied to the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of
independent claims 18 and 35 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13,
16, 17, 19 – 26, 29, 31 – 34 , and 36 – 42, and we sustain the rejection
thereof. Furthermore, Appellant has waived arguments to the obviousness
rejection. In this decision, we have considered only those arguments
actually made by Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 27,
28, and 30 based upon anticipation. The Examiner did not err in rejecting
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16–26, 29, and 31–42 based upon
obviousness.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 27, 28, and 30 is sustained and the Examiner's
Appeal 2012-011063
Application 11/764,579
6
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16–26, 29, and 31–
42 is sustained

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tj