Ex Parte Zhou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201613528347 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/528,347 06/20/2012 20991 7590 02/29/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Guangcai Zhou UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. PD-206083A 9020 EXAMINER FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2633 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GUANGCAI ZHOU, ERNEST C. CHEN, JOSEPH SANTORU, and WDITH M. WANG Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm-In-Part. INVENTION This invention relates to a method and apparatus for identifying a co- channel interference signal in communications systems. (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 Representative Claim 1. In a system receiving a composite signal comprising a desired signal having a desired frame including desired synchronization data and an interference signal, a method of receiving the desired signal and rejecting the interference signal, comprising the steps of: demodulating the composite signal; acquiring a phase of the desired synchronization data of the demodulated composite signal; tracking the acquired phase of the demodulated composite signal according to phase tracking information; [L 1] sensing if the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away from the desired signal by the interference signal; and [L2] choosing whether to update the phase tracking information according to whether the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is sensed to be being dra1lvn ai,vay' from the desired signal by the interference signal. (Contested limitations L 1 and L2 lettered and emphasized). Rejections RI. Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, 19 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement. R2. Claims 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 2 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 R3. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,697,098 Bl; published Feb. 24, 2004). R4. Claims 5, 13 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Wang and Agrawal (U.S. Application Pub. No, 2004/0228267 Al; published Nov. 18, 2004). ANALYSIS We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence presented. (App. Br. 12-26, Reply Br. 4--19). Rejection RI under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written description) Issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 3, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement? The Examiner finds: Re claims 3, 11 and 19, the limitation "sensing if the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is drawn away from the desired signal by the interference signal is according to a rate that the tracked phase is drawn away a previously tracked phase" was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor( s ), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner specifically finds the disclosure lacks support where "the drawing away is according to a rate that the tracked phase is drawn away from a previously tracked phase." (Ans. 3). 3 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 Appellants contend the Specification (at pages 27, lines 4--21 and pages 14, lines 10 et seq.), provides support for claim 3. (App. Br. 4, 13). Regarding these cited passages, Appellants particularly contend: "Both the terms "abruptly" and "slowly" can only be interpreted as to refer to the "rate" recited in the claims." (App. Br. 13). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562---63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The invention claimed does not have to be described in ipsis verbis in order to satisfy the written description requirement. Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Ric/1field Co., 208 F.3d 989, 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, given the broad descriptions in Appellants' cited sections of the Specification, we additionally note, "it is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure . . . Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device' .... A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536 (CCPA 1963)). See also Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("we have repeatedly stated that actual 'possession' or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Rather, ... it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession."). 4 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 Moreover, broad descriptions in the Specification considered alone, or when combined with the knowledge of an artisan, which merely render obvious the claim limitation are insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See e.g., Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572. This reasoning is applicable here. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants unsupported assertion the words "abruptly" and "slowly" can only be interpreted as to refer to "a rate that the tracked phase is drawn away from a previously tracked phase" as recited in claim 3. See also claims 11 and 19. Appellants further contend: "The specification clearly refers to changes in the tracked phase, which reasonably conveys the reference to a previous tracked phase." (App. Br. 14). "Hence, as disclosed in the Applicants specification, the system senses the slow rate and concludes that the signal is not an interfering signal, or it senses the abrupt rate and determines that the signal is an interfering signal." (Id.). However, Appellants do not point to the corresponding portions of the Specification to support these contentions. Therefore, these contentions are mere attorney arguments unsupported by factual evidence. On this record, and by the preponderance of evidence, we find the portions of the Specification pointed to by Appellants in the Briefs fail to convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing data sought, Appellants were in possession of the invention, as claimed. We note the contested limitation cited by the Examiner is recited in commensurate form in each of claims 3, 11 and 19. Accordingly, we sustain rejection RI of claims 3, 11 and 19, under 112, first paragraph (written description). 5 Appeal2014-003130 Application I3/528,347 Issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8, I 6, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I I2, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement? For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants in the Briefs (App. Br. I2-I8, Reply Br. 8-I3), we reverse the Examiner's rejection RI (Final Act. 3) under§ I I2, first paragraph (written description) of claim 8 ("phase of the desired synchronization data and to the phase of the interfering synchronization data"). We find Appellants' Specification (at pages I 4, 24, and Fig. 3) provides sufficient written support where the PL header 40 I and pilot block 405 are used for carrier and phase synchronization by carrier synchronization module 302. (See App. Br. I3-I8, Spec. p. I4, 1. IO et seq., p. 24, 1. 4, p. 27, 1. 4 et seq.). Therefore, we reverse rejection RI of claims 8, I6, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I I2, first paragraph. Rejection R2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph Issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims I 7-24 under 35 U.S.C. § I I2, second paragraph, because there are no corresponding structures found in the Specification for the means for acquiring, means for tracking, means for sensing, and means for choosing limitations recited in independent claim I 7? 1 In the Final Office Action the Examiner rejected claims I 7-24 under § I I2, second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final Act. 4). Specifically, 1 If there is no structure in the specification corresponding to the means- plus-function limitation in the claims, the claim is invalid as indefinite. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., I98 F.3d I374, I378-79 (Fed. Cir. I999) (citing In re Donaldson, I6 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. I994) (en bane)). 6 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 the Examiner found "The specification discloses [] a demodulator as shown in Figures 1 and 3 but fails to associate the corresponding structure of the demodulator to the claimed functions (phase acquisition, phase tracking, sensing and choosing) such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed functions." (Final Act. 4). Independent claim 1 7 recites, in pertinent part: In a system receiving a composite signal ... comprising the steps of: means for acquzrzng a phase of the desired synchronization data of the demodulated composite signal; means for tracking the acquired phase of the demodulated composite signal according to phase tracking information; means for sensing if the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away from the desired signal by the interference signal; and means for choosing whether to update the phase tracking information according to whether the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is sensed to be being drawn away from the desired signal by the interference signal. (App. Br. 32). Appellants contend: [T]he phase acquisition, sensing, and choosing is performed by the demodulator, and more specifically, the carrier synchronization module 302 disclosed in FIG. 3. (App. Br. 19). It is well established that the use of the term "means" triggers a rebuttable presumption that§ 112, i-f 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Although this provision permits a claim limitation to be set forth using 7 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 solely functional language, it operates to restrict such claim limitations to those structures, materials, or acts disclosed in the specification (or their equivalents) that perform the claimed function. Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellants' Specification discloses that "carrier synchronization module 302 provides frequency and phase acquisition and tracking and descrambling of the signals output from the demodulator 301." (Spec. 18, See App. Br. 8-9, citing 302 and Fig. 3). The Specification also discloses that carrier synchronization module 302 can "choose not to update the phase track ... "upon sensing phase track pull-off (App. Br. 8-9, citing Spec. 27, lines 5-21 ). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions because Appellants have not specifically shown where in the Specification is found the corresponding structure for the recited "means" which perform the functions of "acquiring," "tracking," "sensing" and "choosing". (Ans. 8, claim 17). In particular, we do not find the Specification discloses carrier synchronization module 302 as performing the "sensing" function. Furthermore, module 302 is not sufficiently described as a structure beyond a depiction of a rectangle in Fig. 3. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain rejection R2, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of independent claim 17, and rejection R2 of claims 18-24, which depend from claim 17. 8 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 Anticipation Rejection R3 oflndependent Claims 1, 9, and 17 2 Regarding the anticipation rejection R3 of independent claims 1, 9 and 17, Appellants contend: "Wang merely teaches tracking a signal, not sensing whether that signal is drawn away from the desired signal by an interference signal." (App. Br. 23). Appellants further contend: [Wang] discloses a well-known phase control loop. Once it locks onto a particular signal, it generates an error signal that is used to track the phase of that signal. If the tracked phase of the signal that is locked on to deviates, an error signal is generated, and the phase control loop adjusts the phase to maintain lock on the particular signal. If the error signal is too large, lock with the particular signal is broken. (App. Br. 23). Appellants additionally argue: The Final Office Action's statement: "If the output of the phase detector is an error signal that indicates that the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away from the desired signal and the PLL remains unlocked, where the phase tracking information would not be updated until the PLL locks" is incorrect. That's because if the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away from the desired signal, the PLL does not remain unlocked. To say that the composite signal is being drawn away means that the PLL has locked to the desired signal, and has not yet been drawn off of that lock. (App. Br. 24). The Examiner finds Wang's phase detector 340, which detects phase error (Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines 12-28), discloses the contested "sensing" and "choosing" steps LI and L2. (Final Act. 6). The Examiner further finds: 2 Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 9, and 17, rejected under anticipation rejection R3, on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 9 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 "If there is a phase error (the phase error is the result of when the demodulated signal is drawn away from the desired signal) the PLL remains unlocked until the phase error becomes minimum or zero on a plurality of loops." (Ans. 9). We agree with Examiner's finding Wang's NTSC co-channel interference discloses the "interference signal" recited in claim 1. (Wang, Abstract, Fig. 7, Claim 12). We further find Wang's Q signal discloses the claim 1 limitation: "sensing if the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away .... " (Wang Fig. 3, col. 4 lines 13- 28, 39--40, and 50-54). Given these findings, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of contested claim limitations LI and L2 on Wang is overly broad or unreasonable. 3 For at least these reasons, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding of anticipation. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain anticipation rejection R3 of representative independent claim I. Independent claims 9 and 17 fall with claim 1. Anticipation Rejection R3 of claims 2, 10 and 18 Claim 2 recites: "The method of claim 1, wherein the sensing if the tracked phase of the demodulated composite signal is being drawn away from the desired signal by the interference signal is performed according to a 3 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 10 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 statistical model of an expected phase of the desired synchronization data." (Emphasis added). Appellants contend the cited portion of the Wang reference "plainly discloses nothing about the notion of using a statistical model of the expected phase." (App. Br. 25). Although the Examiner cites to column 4, lines 12-28 of Wang (Final Act. 6), we find this section is silent regarding the contested "statistical model" limitation. Although a literal teaching is not required, we also do not agree with the Examiner's finding the "statistical model" is necessarily disclosed by the (inherent) "mathematical" performance of Wang's phase detector. For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants (App. Br. 12-26; Reply Br. 4--19), as discussed above, we are persuaded the Examiner erred regarding anticipation rejection R3 of dependent claim 2, and also rejection R3 of dependent claims 10 and 18, which each recite commensurate limitations. Therefore, we reverse anticipation rejection R3 of claims 2, 10 and 18. Anticipation Rejection R3 of claims 4, 12 and 20 4 Claim 4 recites: "The method of claim 1, wherein the desired synchronization data comprises a desired header of the desired frame." Appellants contend the portion of the Wang reference cited by the Examiner (Col. 2, lines 15--47 and Col. 3, lines 49---63) "does not disclose 4 Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 4, 12, and 20, rejected under anticipation rejection R3, on the basis of representative claim 4. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 11 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 using the header or any segment for synchronization data, but rather, a pilot signal." (App. Br. 25). The Examiner finds: "Wang discloses[] the synchronization data comprising a desired header of the desired frame as the field sync segment, where the field sync segment as disclosed in Figure 4 is used for symbol timing recovery (synchronization)." (Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclude the scope of claim term "header" covers a "pilot signal" under a broad but reasonable interpretation. We observe Appellants' Specification describes "header" and "pilot" symbols as being interchangeable: e.g., "header symbols or pilot symbols" and "PL header 401 and/or pilot block 405 may be used" (See Spec. 13, line 5, 14; Spec. 14, line 13, Spec. 15, line 19-21, Spec. 18, line 30, Spec. 19 line 1--4). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain anticipation rejection R3 of dependent claim 4, and rejection R3 of claims 12, and 20, which fall with claim 4. Anticipation Rejection R3 of Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22, and 23 Because Appellants have not provided separate arguments regarding dependent claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22, and 23, we sustain anticipation rejection R3 of these claims. Obviousness Rejection R4 of Claims 5, 13, 21 Because Appellants have not provided separate arguments regarding dependent claims 5, 13, and 21, we sustain the rejection R4 of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 12 Appeal2014-003130 Application 13/528,347 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 11, and 19 under § 112, first paragraph (written description). We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 16, and 24 under § 112, first paragraph (written description). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-24 under§ 112, second paragraph. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, and 23 under § 102( e ). We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 10 and 18 under § 102(e). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 13, 21 under § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation