10366932 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

Ex Parte Bois et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 23, 2012

10366932 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte KARL JOSEPH BOIS, DEREK L. KNEE, and VAISHNAV SRINIVAS ____________ Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yoshimura (Ryuji Yoshimura et al., DS-CDMA Wired Bus with Simple Interconnection Topology for Parallel Processing System LSIs, 2000 IEEE INT’L SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS CONF. 370-71 (2000)), Chan (Chi-Kin Chan & Wong-Hing Lam, Efficient Use of Pseudo-Noise Sequences in Synchronous Direct-Sequence Spread-Spectrum Multiple- Access Communication Systems, 1 VEHICULAR TECH. CONF. 540-44 (1994)), and Gilhousen (US 5,103,459, issued Apr. 7, 1992). (Ans. 3).1 We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Background The Application contains four independent claims (1, 17, 27, and 28) each of which is the subject of this Appeal. Each independent claim relates generally to systems and methods for facilitating simultaneous point-to-point communications using an orthogonal coding/decoding scheme. See Spec. ¶¶ 0006-11. All four independent claims in the present application are directed to asynchronous communications systems. In particular, the application 1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the Specification (Spec.) filed February 14, 2003, the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July 9, 2009, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed October 21, 2009, and the Reply Brief (Reply) filed December 14, 2009. Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 3 relates to systems in which independent encoding processes do not have to be synchronized. See Spec. ¶ 0008. The Claimed Invention Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An orthogonal data link, comprising: a first digital device; a second digital device; and a bus coupling the first digital device to the second digital device; the first digital device having a first transmitter for encoding first data with a first code for transmission on the bus, the second device having a second transmitter for encoding second data with a second code for transmission on the bus, the encoding of the first data being asynchronous to the encoding of the second data, the first device having a first receiver for decoding the second data with the second code, the second device having a second receiver for decoding the first data with the first code, the first and second codes being substantially orthogonal with one another, the first code comprising N 1s and no 0s, the second code comprising N/2 1s and N/2 0s, N being an even integer greater than or equal to 2. CONTENTIONS With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds each limitation in the cited art. The Examiner finds that Yoshimura teaches a wired bus transmitter-receiver system using pseudo-noise (PN) codes (Figure 22.5.2) and that Chan explicitly teaches that PN codes include orthogonal codes such as Rademacher and Walsh sequences (p. 541, § III (wherein category B is orthogonal sequences)). The Examiner further finds that Gilhousen teaches that a Walsh function of order n (n being the number of code symbols) must contain one sequence containing all zeroes and all the other sequences contain half ones and half zeroes (col. 10, l. 61–col. 11, l. 2). The Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 4 different Walsh sequences are time-aligned with each other so that every sequence differs from every other sequence in exactly half of its bits. (col. 10, ll. 61-67). The Examiner finds that [a]n inherent property of the 2 code symbol Walsh sequences is that they are always cross-correlated with each other and thus, time aligned with each other because the bits of the second “non all zero” sequence will always differ from the all zero sequence in exactly half of its bits (paraphrasing Gilhousen in column 10, lines 61-65 . . . ). (Ans. 4). ISSUE Has the Examiner established that the cited art teaches asynchronous encoding? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that none of Yoshimura, Chan, and Gilhousen, either alone or in combination, teaches the encoding of first data being asynchronous to the encoding of second data. (App. Br. 12). According to Appellants, each reference teaches synchronous encoding. “The primary reference, Yoshimura, indicates in reference to Figure 22.5.1 that ‘[t]he local clock is distributed to all transmitter and receiver circuits to synchronously generate the PN codes.’ Yoshimura, p. 1, second paragraph (emphasis added).” (Id.). “Chan indicates that ‘[o]rthogonal sets of sequences, such as Walsh and Rademacher sequences, are the optimal sets of sequences for synchronous DS/SSMA [direct sequence spread-spectrum multiple-access] communication system which assumes perfect synchronization.’ Chan, conclusion, p. 544 (emphasis added).” (Id.). Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 5 Finally, in reference to Walsh functions, Gilhousen states that “[a] Walsh function of order n (as well as other orthogonal functions) has the property that over the interval of n code symbols, the cross-correlation between all the different sequences within the set is zero, provided that the sequences are time aligned with each other.” Gilhousen, col. 10, ll. 61-65 (emphasis added). Thus, Gilhousen does not teach or suggest that encoding of the data may be performed asynchronously using two different codes. Indeed, Gilhousen indicates that “[a]ll the cells in a service area are supplied with accurate synchronization.” Id., col. 12, ll. 49 and 50. Such time alignment as described in Gilhousen contradicts encoding the first and second data asynchronously, as provided for in claims 1, 17, 27, and 28. (App. Br. 13). The Examiner agrees that neither Yoshimura nor Chan discloses asynchronous encoding associated with the PN codes. (Ans. 16). We note above that Yoshimura and Chan expressly teach synchronous encoding. Moreover, the Examiner recognizes that Gilhousen teaches that “‘[a] Walsh function of order n (as well as other orthogonal functions) has the property that over the interval of n code symbols, the cross-correlation between all the different sequences within the set is zero, provided that the sequences are time aligned with each other.’” (Ans. 16 (quoting Gilhousen, col. 10, ll. 61- 67 (emphasis added))). However, notwithstanding these express teachings of each of the cited references requiring synchronous encoding, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to not include synchronization units in a two code system since for the Walsh function, one code must be “all zeroes” and does not require time alignment synchronization because “all zeroes” sequence value does not change and has the property that it is cross-correlated with the second sequence that is half zero and half one. Appeal 2010-003332 Application 10/366,932 6 (Ans. 4). The Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason to diverge from the express teachings of the references. Nor has the Examiner offered more than conclusory support for a proposition that is to the opposite of these teachings. Because we are persuaded that the cited references do not teach or suggest “asynchronous encoding,” we do not affirm the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-31.2 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-23, and 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED babc 2 This issue is dispositive of all the rejections before us, therefore, we do not reach the merits of the other contentions.