Ex Parte SchaffnerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411764579 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation