Ex Parte Azadet

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 16, 2010

10610335 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 16, 2010)

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.
10/610,335 06/30/2003 Kameran Azadet 24 6562
47386 7590 11/17/2010
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
EXAMINER
GHEBRETINSAE, TEMESGHEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KAMERAN AZADET
____________________

Appeal 2009-010101
Application 10/610,335
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MARC S. HOFF, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-010101
Application 10/610,335

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
2, 5-19, and 22-31. Claims 3, 4, 20, and 21 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for processing a received signal on one or more
twisted pair, said method comprising the steps of:
generating a differential component of said received signal:
generating a common mode component of said received signal;
and
reducing alien cross-talk from said received signal by applying
a vector comprised of said differential and common mode components
to a multi-dimensional adaptive filter.

Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 9-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27,
30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yeap,
U.S. Patent 6,052,420.
2. The Examiner rejected dependent claims 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 17,
22-25, 28, and 29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combinations of Yeap with various secondary references.2

2 The rejections of dependent claims under 103(a) are not separately argued
from the rejection of the independent claims under 102(b).
Appeal 2009-010101
Application 10/610,335

3
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
9-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, and 31 because:
A. “Yeap does not disclose or suggest treating SCM and SDM as a
vector!” (App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)).
B. “Yeap does not disclose or suggest . . . multi-dimensional
filters.” (App. Br. 8).
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 9-11, 14, 16,
18, 19, 26, 27, 30, and 31 as being anticipated because Yeap fails to disclose
the claim limitations.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellant’s contention A above, we disagree with Appellant’s
conclusion. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 11-12) in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. As to contention A, we concur with
the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
However, we agree with Appellant as to contention B above.
Although Yeap teaches a multi-frequency adaptive filter, the Examiner has
erred in finding that Yeap teaches that the filter is multi-dimensional. We
note that Appellant in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4) argues that a multi-
dimensional adaptive filter requires “matrix coefficients.” However,
Appeal 2009-010101
Application 10/610,335

4
Appellant provides no evidence to support this argument for a very narrow
definition of “multi-dimensional adaptive filter.” This proposed narrow
definition is not in alignment with the normal understanding of the term
multi-dimensional filter which merely requires filtering in plural dimensions,
e.g., 2D, 3D, or Time-Frequency. Nonetheless, the Examiner erred in
finding that Yeap teaches filtering in plural dimensions such as 2D, 3D, or
Time-Frequency.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 9-11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, and 31 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 17, 22-25, 28, and 29 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1, 2, 5-19, and 22-31 have not been shown
to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-19, and 22-31 are
reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-010101
Application 10/610,335

5
babc

RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824