Ex Parte HirthDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 29, 201612828568 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/828,568 07/01/2010 Ryan E. HIRTH 49579 7590 03/01/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. 2875.4460001 7062 EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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 RY AN E. HIRTH Appeal 2014-001691 Application 12/828,568 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20. Claims 4, 12, and 19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Appeal2014-001691 Application 12/828,568 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention is directed to "a method and apparatus for detecting frame delimiters in Ethernet Passive Optical Network (EPON) frames with Forward Error Correction (FEC) code" (Spec. i-f 2). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for identifying an even delimiter in a forward error correction (FEC)-coded Ethernet frame, compnsmg: receiving an FEC-coded Ethernet frame that includes an even delimiter used to separate a conventional Ethernet frame and FEC parity bits in the FEC-coded Ethernet frame, wherein the even delimiter is a predetermined bit sequence; scanning a bit stream of the FEC-coded Ethernet frame; determining a first Hamming distance between a first consecutive set of frame bits in the bit stream and the even delimiter, wherein the first Hamming distance is shorter than a predefined value; determining a second Hamming distance between a subsequent second consecutive set of frame bits in the bit stream and the even delimiter, wherein the second Hamming distance is shorter than the predefined value; selecting one of the first and second sets of frame bits having the shorter Hamming distance as the even delimiter. (Contested limitation emphasized). REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofNuyen (US 7,152,199 B2; Dec. 19, 2006) and Leung (US 7,953,324 B2; May 31, 2011). 2 Appeal2014-001691 Application 12/828,568 ANALYSIS Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Leung cures Nuyen's deficiency by disclosing the claim limitations "determining a first Hamming distance between a first consecutive set of frame bits" and an even delimiter, "determining a second Hamming distance between a subsequent second consecutive set of frame bits" and the even delimiter, and "selecting one of the first and second sets of frame bits having the shorter Hamming distance as the even delimiter" (App. Br. 9--14; Reply Br. 3-7). Particularly, Appellant asserts the claim requires one of first and second sets of bit frames is determined to have a shorter Hamming distance, and that set is selected as the even delimiter (Reply Br. 5). In contrast, Leung merely discloses any calculated Hamming distance is compared to only a synchronization threshold for determining whether a successful synchronization has occurred-Leung does not compare a first Hamming distance with a second Hamming distance and then select the shorter distance as the even delimiter (id.). We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds Leung receives data in a shift register that "acts as a 'sliding window' in which a Hamming distance is calculated from its contents," and"[ w ]hen the Hamming distance meets a minimum distance ... a Synchronization Decision Module selects the corresponding bits in the shift register as the SOD sync delimiter (col. 7, lines 53-58)" (Ans. 2). The Examiner, in the Final Action also points to columns 7 and 8 and Figures 4 and 6 as teaching the contested claim limitations (Final Act. 6-7). However, based on the evidence of record and in the absence of sufficient reasoning in support of the rejection, the Examiner has not established Leung teaches or suggests the contested limitations that were not 3 Appeal2014-001691 Application 12/828,568 found by the Examiner to be taught or suggested by the primary Nuyen reference. (Final Act. 6-7). Thus, we agree with Appellant the Examiner erred in finding Leung teaches or suggests Appellant's contested claim limitations. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 1 7 each recite the aforementioned contested "selecting" limitation using similar commensurate language. Therefore, we reverse claims 9 and 1 7 for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Because we have reversed the Examiner's rejection of each independent claim, we also reverse the § 103 rejection of each associated dependent claim on appeal. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-18, and 20 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation