Ex Parte Atungsiri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2017

13579618 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/579,618 08/17/2012 Samuel Asanbeng Atungsiri 402521US8X PCT 1466
22850 7590 03/08/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, JAISON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUEL ASANBENG ATUNGSIRI, LOTHAR
STADELMEIER, SVEN MUHAMMAD, JORG ROBERT, OBIOMA
CHIEDOZIE DONALD OKEHIE, MATTHEW PAUL ATHOL TAYLOR,
and JAN ZOELLNER
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 19—62, which are all of the claims currently pending in
the application. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on February 15, 2017.1
We affirm.
1 A transcript of the oral hearing will be forthcoming.
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed “to transmitters for transmitting data
via Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbols in which
the data is provided from a plurality of different pipes.” Spec 1:4—6. Claim
19 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
19. A transmitter for communicating data using
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexed (OFDM) symbols,
the OFDM symbols including a plurality of sub-carrier symbols
formed in a frequency domain for modulating with the data to be
carried, the transmitter comprising:
modulating circuitry configured to:
receive, on a first input, data symbols from a first data pipe
according to a first communications channel for transmission;
receive, on a second input, data symbols from a local
service insertion data pipe according to a local communications
channel for transmission;
select to modulate the sub-carrier signals of the OFDM
symbols with the data symbols from the first data pipe or with
the data symbols from both the first data pipe and the local
service insertion pipe;
modulate the sub-carrier signals of the OFDM symbols
with the data symbols from the first data pipe by mapping the
data symbols according to a first modulation scheme when
modulating with the data symbols from the first data pipe is
selected;
modulate the sub-carrier signals of the OFDM symbols
with the data symbols from the first data pipe and the local
service insertion pipe by mapping the data symbols from the
local service insertion pipe and the first communications channel
according to a second modulation scheme when modulating the
with the data symbols from the first data pipe and the local
service insertion pipe is selected; and
2
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
modulate a radio frequency carrier signal with the OFDM
symbols for transmission, wherein
the first modulation scheme is a lower order modulation
scheme providing first modulation symbols with values from a
smaller number of constellation points in the complex plane than
the second modulation scheme, and
the second modulation scheme is a higher order
modulation scheme providing second modulation symbols with
values which are disposed in the complex plane about
corresponding values of the first modulation scheme, with effect
that detection of one of the second modulation symbols of the
second modulation scheme provides data symbols from the local
service insertion pipe and/or the first data pipe and allows the
detection of first modulation symbols from the first modulation
scheme providing data symbols from the first data pipe, in the
presence of modulation symbols from the second modulation
scheme, thereby providing the modulating circuitry with a
plurality of modulation layers.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 19-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Steer (US 2008/0159186 Al; July 3, 2008)
and Huschke (US 2009/0013365 Al; Jan. 8, 2009).
Claims 47—62 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Steer, Jiang (US 2006/0013120 Al; Jan.
19, 2006), and Huschke.
ISSUES
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Steer and
Huschke teaches or suggests select to modulate the sub-carrier signals of the
3
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
OFDM symbols with the data symbols from the first data pipe or with the
data symbols from both the first data pipe and the local service insertion
pipe (“select” limitation), as recited in independent claim 19?
B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Steer and
Huschke teaches or suggests modulate the sub-carrier signals of the OFDM
symbols with the data symbols from the first data pipe and the local service
insertion pipe by mapping the data symbols from the local service insertion
pipe and the first communications channel according to a second
modulation scheme when modulating the with the data symbols from the first
data pipe and the local service insertion pipe is selected (“modulate”
limitation), as recited in independent claim 19?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusions that the Examiner’s rejections of the claims are in
error.
Appellants contend the combination of Steer and Huschke does not
teach or suggest the “select” and “modulate” limitations recited in
independent claim 19. App. Br. 17—23; Reply Br. 2—10. Specifically,
Appellants argue Huschke does not describe or suggest selecting to
modulate, but rather merely determines which information to forward—
either the received composite digital broadcast signal or a single bit stream
of information. App. Br. 18—19. Appellants further argue that irrespective
of what information is determined to be forward, Huschke executes the same
modulation and frequency shifting process to transmit to the recording
4
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
device. App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 3. With regard to the “modulate”
limitation, Appellants argue that Steer merely discloses a base station may
transmit a first data using a modulation layer with greater reliability and may
further transmit a second data using modulation layer with lesser reliability,
but Steer does not describe or suggest transmitting a first data and a second
data using a same modulation layer, and, thus, does not suggest the
“modulate” limitation. App. Br. 22.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Steer and Huschke
teaches or suggests the “select” limitation. See Ans. 6—9. The cited sections
of Steer describe transmitting data using OFDM sub-carriers and that
different modulation layers may be used to transmit different information
(e.g., national and local news). See Steer || 39, 42, 45. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Steer teaches or suggests modulating OFDM symbols
from one data pipe (e.g., national content when there is no local content to
be transmitted) and modulating symbols from two data streams (local and
national content). See Ans. 6—7. We further agree with the Examiner that
Huschke teaches selecting to modulate data from a first and second stream
or selecting only one data stream to modulate. Ans. 7. As explained by the
Examiner (Ans. 7), Huschke’s selection of direct forwarding in step S46
results in a selection to modulate both the first and second broadcast streams
(performed in step S48), and a selection to not direct forward in S46 is a
selection to modulate only one of the data streams in S48. See Huschke Fig.
10. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Huschke does not
teach the “select” limitation, because the Examiner finds, and we agree, the
combined teachings of Steer and Huschke teach or suggest this limitation.
5
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
We are also unpersuaded the Examiner errs in finding the combination
of Steer and Huschke teaches the “modulate” limitation. Final Act. 3^4;
Ans. 11—12. The Examiner finds that Steer discloses, in Figure 2A, a first
modulation scheme that uses a single layer (transmitting only one data
stream) and discloses in Figure 2B a second modulation scheme that uses
two layers when transmitting data from two data streams (first data pipe and
local service insertion pipe). Ans. 11. Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 22)
that Steer does not describe transmitting first and second data using a same
modulation layer is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 19
merely recites a second modulation scheme is used when modulating data
symbols from the first data pipe and local service insertion pipe, not using a
same modulation layer. Moreover, we observe that Appellants’
Specification describes that “[ejmbodiments of the present technique
provide an arrangement which utilises the multi-layer modulation technique
according to US 2008/0159186 [Steer],” which is described as a known
technique for modulating data from two sources. Spec. 11:7—12, 11:29-32.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of: (1) claim 19; (2) independent claims 27, 35, and 43, for which
Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 19 (App. Br. 22—23);
and (3) dependent claims 20—26, 28—34, 36-42, and 44-46, which are not
argued separately.
6
Appeal 2015-003604
Application 13/579,618
With respect to claims 47—62, Appellants merely contend the
additional reference used in the rejection of these claims (Jiang) does not
make up for the purported deficiencies present in the rejection of
independent claim 19. See App. Br. 23. For the reasons discussed supra,
Appellants fail to establish any deficiencies in the rejection of claim 19.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 47—62.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19-62.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7