Ex Parte Fulghum et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

10720492 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

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.
10/720,492 11/24/2003 Tracy Fulghum 4015-5133 4554
24112 7590 03/29/2012
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2012 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 TRACY FULGHUM, GREGORY EDWARD BOTTOMLEY,
YI-PIN ERIC WANG, and ALI S. KHAYRALLAH
____________

Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19-89. Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is a method and apparatus for reducing interference
from a symbol of interest in a RAKE receiver. See Specification 3.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 32 under appeal reads as follows:
32. A RAKE receiver for reducing interference from a
symbol of interest comprising:

a plurality of RAKE fingers to despread a plurality of
unknown symbols received over multiple paths of a multi-path
channel;

a processor to determine cross-correlations between
different symbols based on code cross-correlations between
spreading codes for the different symbols; and

a combiner to combine despread symbols from different
symbol periods using weighting factors determined based on
the cross-correlations between the different symbols to generate
an estimate of the symbol of interest with reduced interference.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 20, 21, 28, 31-35, 40, 44-52, 58, 62-68, 71, 74-
79, 81-85, 87, and 89 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 (b) as being
anticipated by Papasakellariou (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2001/0053177 A1; published December 20, 2001). Answer 4-5.
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

3
Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22-27, 29, 30, 36-39, 41-43, 53-
57, 59-61, 69, 70, 72, 73, 80, 86, and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Papasakellariou and Eberhardt (U.S.
Patent Number 5,754,583 (filed May 6, 1996) (issued May 19, 1998).
Answer 5-8.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Does Papasakellariou teach using code cross-correlations as part of a
despread symbol or RAKE combining process?

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
Appellants argue that Papasakellariou does not anticipate independent
claim 32 because Papasakellariou does not disclose the utilization of code
cross-correlations as part of a despread symbol or RAKE combining process
because Papasakellariou “determines the interfering signals and uses the
code cross-correlations to weight the determined inferring symbols.”
Appeal Brief 11. Appellants further argue “Papasakellariou relies on known
interfering symbols (determined in the receiver) and performs the
interference cancellation before any type of despread symbol combining.”
Id. (citing Papasakellariou, paragraphs [0009] and [0081]). Appellants
conclude because “Papasakellariou does not rely on unknown symbols and
because Papasakellariou does not combine the despread symbols using
weighting factors determined based on code cross-correlations,
Papasakellariou does not anticipate independent claim 32.” Id.
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

4
The Examiner contends the term “unknown” employed in claim 32,
among others, was not explicitly defined in the claims. Answer 11. The
Examiner further contends that the term “unknown symbols” were just
added to the instant application in an amendment filed on June 29, 2007. Id.
at 11-12. “For examination purposes, the unknown symbols were treated as
symbols that were not known at the receiver prior to the reception of the
symbols.” Id. at 12. The Examiner reasons that if the receiver already
knew what data was to be transmitted there would be no need to actually
send data and for this reason the interfering symbols and symbol of interest
are unknown symbols. Id.
The Examiner finds that Papasakellariou discloses a system that is a
RAKE receiver and combining the previously described “weights the
determined interfering symbols in the RAKE receiver.” See Answer 11, 12
(citing Papasakellariou, paragraph [0009]; see also Appeal Brief 11 (wherein
Appellants acquiesce Papasakellariou discloses weighted interfering
symbols)). Finally, the Examiner concludes that “Papasakellariou
determines the interfering signals and uses the code cross-correlation to
weight the determined interfering symbols.” See Answer 12 (citing Appeal
Brief 11).
We do not find the Examiner’s rationale and reasoning persuasive.
While we agree with the Examiner that Appellants concede Papasakellariou
discloses various elements that are correlated to the invention recited in
claim 32, we do not find support for the Examiner’s findings that
Papasakellariou truly relies upon unknown symbols and combines despread
symbols using weighting factors determined based upon code cross-
correlations. See Papasakellariou, paragraphs [0003], [0007], and [0009].
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

5
The Examiner reliance upon the Appellants’ admissions does not cure the
deficiencies of Papasakellariou. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 32. Nor do we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 20, 21, 28, 31, 33-35, 40, 44-52, 58, 62-
68, 71, 74-79, 81-85, 87, and 89 for the same reasons as we stated above.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants argue that“e]ach of independent claims 8 and 24
explicitly require processing unknown symbols to reduce interference” and
further “combining the despread symbols based upon code cross-correlations
between spreading codes of unknown symbols.” Appeal Brief 15. The
Examiner relies upon Eberhardt to address Papasakellariou’s deficiency
because Papasakellariou does not disclose a RAKE finger that generates
estimated channel coefficients. See Answer 6. However, Eberhardt does
not address the previous noted deficiencies of Papasakellariou, and
therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 8 and 24, nor do we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
the corresponding dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25-27,
29, 30, 36-39, 41-43, 53-57, 59-61, 69, 70, 72, 73, 80, 86, and 88.

NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 16, 21, 24, 28, 32, 49, 67, and 83 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which is not
described in the Specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time the application was
filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

6
limitations drawn to unknown symbols and to variations thereof. Appellants
have not provided any evidence that the “unknown” claim limitation, along
with its variations, are described in the Specification.
Although we decline to reject every claim under our discretionary
authority under 37 C.F.R. 41.50 (b), we emphasize that our decision does not
mean the remaining claims are patentable. Rather, we merely leave the
patentability determination of these claims to the Examiner. See MPEP
§ 1213.02.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50 (b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) also provides that:
T]he Appellants, within two months from the date of the
decision, must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of
the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and
19-89 are reversed.
Appeal 2009-009490
Application 10/720,492

7

REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

llw