Ex Parte Jiang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12652390 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/652,390 01/05/2010 Hong Jiang
46304 7590 11/02/2016
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
48 South Service Road
Suite 100
Melville, NY 11747
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.
805909 1042
EXAMINER
GHULAMALI, QUTBUDDIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
nyoffice@rml-law.com
jbr@rml-law.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG JIANG, KIM N. MATTHEWS, ZULFIQUAR
SA YEED, PAUL A. WILFORD, and LESLEY J. WU
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge PYONIN.
Opinion Dissenting-in-Part filed by Administrative Patent Judge
HORVATH.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, and 20-22. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Claims 5 and 17-19 have been objected to for being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, and claim 16 has been allowed. See Non-Final Act. 13.
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure is directed to "the field of signal processing,
and more particularly ... to multiple description coding of signals for
transmission over a communication network or other type of communication
medium." Spec. 1 :4---6. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a multiple description encoder, the encoder comprising:
orthogonal multiple description generation circuitry
configured to produce multiple descriptions of a given signal by
processing the signal using respective ones of a plurality of
orthogonal matrices;
wherein each of the multiple descriptions is generated as a
function of said signal and a corresponding one of the plurality
of orthogonal matrices; and
wherein the signal comprises a vector of dimension N and
the plurality of orthogonal matrices comprise orthogonal
matrices of dimension N x N.
References and Rejections
Claims 1--4, 6-9, 12-15, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goyal (US 6,330,370 B2; Dec. 11,
2001) and Chang (US 2010/0177842 Al; July 15, 2010). Final Act. 3.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goyal, Chang, and Ragot (US 2010/0121646 Al; May 13,
2010). Final Act. 12.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goyal, Chang, Ragot, and Onggosanusi (US
2003/0016640 Al; Jan. 23, 2003). Final Act. 12.
2
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner's "rejection of claim 1 is in error as
the collective teachings of Goyal and Chang fail to disclose all of the
features of claim 1." App. Br. 4. Particularly, Appellants contend
[ c] laim 1 [] recites that the signal comprises a vector of
dimension N and the plurality of orthogonal matrices comprise
orthogonal matrices of dimension N x N. In the Office Action at
page 4, last paragraph, the Examiner concedes that Goyal fails to
disclose these features and cites to Chang as remedying the
admitted deficiencies of Goyal.
App. Br. 6. Appellants argue that, "Chang, however, does not disclose
processing a signal (comprising a vector of dimension N) using respective
ones of a plurality of orthogonal matrices of dimension N x N. Instead,
Chang describes extracting a row or column vector from an orthogonal
matrix for use in generating a codeword." Id.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Goyal does not teach
the claimed generating descriptions as a :thnction of a signal (of dimension
N) and a plurality of orthogonal matrices (each of dimension N x N). Final
Act. 4. The Examiner finds Chang teaches the disputed limitations, because
"Chang discloses a basic codeword, [a] basic codeword means data symbols
generated by using conventional channel coding," and the "data symbols are
elements of a mapping vector obtained by extracting a row of a simplex code
generated by removing a single row or column of an orthogonal matrix."
Ans. 17 (citing Chang i1i127, 53, 57---60).
Although we agree with the Examiner that Chang discloses obtaining
codewords by using orthogonal matrices of dimension N x N (Chang i160),
we find Chang does not teach or suggest applying these matrices to an input
signal comprising a vector of dimension N, as claimed. We, therefore, agree
3
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
with Appellants that "Chang fails to remedy the admitted deficiencies of
Goyal." App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1, and independent claims 13, 15, and 21 which
recite similar limitations. See App. Br. 7. 2 We do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims, or the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, and 20-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 Appellants present additional arguments. See App. Br. 4--12. As we find
the argument discussed herein persuasive, we do not reach these additional
arguments.
4
UNITEn STATES PATENT ANn TRA.nEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG JIANG, KIM N. MATTHEWS, ZULFIQUAR
SA YEED, PAUL A. WILFORD, and LESLEY J. WU
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting-in-Part.
I respectfully dissent from the Majority's decision to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-15, and 20-22.
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the
combination of Goyal and Chang fails to teach or suggest producing
multiple descriptions of a given N-dimensional signal by processing the
signal using respective ones of a plurality ofN x N orthogonal matrices. See
App. Br. 4--7. In particular, Appellants argue that Chang, cited by the
Examiner for using N x N orthogonal matrices to produce the M descriptions
of Goyal' s N-dimensional input signal:
[D]oes not disclose processing a signal (comprising a vector of
dimension N) using respective ones of a plurality of orthogonal
Appeal2015-006095
Application 12/652,390
matrices of dimension N x N. Instead, Chang describes
extracting a row or column vector from an orthogonal matrix for
use in generating a codeword.
App. Br. 6.
The Majority, although agreeing with the Examiner that Chang
discloses using orthogonal N x N matrices to obtain codewords, "find[ s]
Chang does not teach or suggest applying these matrices to an input signal
comprising a vector of dimension N, as claimed." Dec. 3. I respectfully
disagree.
During prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Specification teaches "generat[ing] M
descriptions y