Ex Parte Kent et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

11173502 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

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.
11/173,502 06/30/2005 Mark Kent 3875.0460001 8494
26111 7590 02/20/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
PATEL, DHAVAL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2014 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 MARK KENT, VINKO ERCEG, URI LANDAU,
and PIETER VAN ROOYEN
___________

Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 1-30. Appeal Brief 2.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “a method and system for channel
equalization.” Specification 3, ¶ 0003.

Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method for processing signals in a receiver, the method
comprising:
generating at least one channel estimate of a time
varying impulse response for at least one of a plurality of
received clusters within at least one received signal, wherein a
cluster comprises an aggregate of continuously processed
received multipaths; and
transforming said generated at least one channel estimate
of said time varying impulse response for said at least one of
said plurality of received clusters to at least one flat fading
channel estimate utilizing at least one signal-to-noise ratio
optimization algorithm.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 6, 21, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Li (WO 02/91643 A1; published November 14,
2002/Li (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0062284 A1;
published March 23, 2006)) and Nissila (U.S. Patent Number 6,868,276 B2;
issued March 15, 2005). Answer 3-6.
Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

3
Claims 2-5 and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li and Leifer (U.S. Patent Application Publication
Number 2007/00155545 A1; published January 18, 2007). Answer 6-8.
Claims 7 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Nissila, and Kyosti (U.S. Patent Number 7,028,232
B2; issued April 11, 2006). Answer 8-9.
Claims 8-10 and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Li, Nissila, Kyosti, and Yang (U.S. Patent Number
7,302,023 B2; issued November 27, 2007). Answer 9-10.
Claims 11 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Nissila, Kyosti, and Langberg (U.S. Patent Number
5,852,630; issued December 22, 1998). Answer 10-11.
Claims 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Nissila, Leifer, and Langberg. Answer 11-12.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Nissila, Kyosti, and Langberg. Answer 12-13.
Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Nissila, Kyosti, Yang, and Langberg. Answer 13-14.

Issue
Under 35 U.S.C. §103, did the Examiner err in finding that Do Li and
Nissila, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested a
generating a time varying impulse response and transforming the impulse by
using a signal to noise ratio optimization algorithm, as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.

Appellants argue, “Li does not disclose or suggest ‘generating at least
one channel estimate of a time varying impulse response for at least one of a
plurality of received clusters within at least one received signal, wherein a
cluster comprises an aggregate of continuously processed received
multipaths,’” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 10. Appellants argue Li
discloses, “single time instant (i.e., time instant n) estimation avoids the
enormous amount of time varying multipath signals computations, thus
reduce errors in estimating the next alleged ‘flat fading channel estimate’” in
order to overcome the Doppler frequency expansion phenomenon caused by
received signals arriving in varying times. Id. at 10-11.
Appellants further argue the combination of Li and Nissila fails to
disclose utilizing a SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) algorithm to generate the
alleged “flat fading channel estimate.” Appeal Brief 12-13. Appellants
contend:
Li’s QPSK demodulation 206 does not utilize the alleged
“SNR optimization algorithm” to generate the alleged “flat
fading channel”. Even though Li discloses that the QPSK
Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

5
demodulation 206 (see Fig. 4, and paragraph [0032]) (in step c)
generates the alleged “flat fading channel estimate”, the
Examiner’s allegation (A) is still deficient. More specifically,
Li at least does not disclose that the QPSK modulation 206
utilizes the alleged “SNR optimization algorithm” to generate
the alleged “flat fading channel estimate”.

Id. at 14.
The Examiner finds that Li discloses a:
CDMA communication system [see col. 3 lines 33-37] in
which the estimated value for the channel at time n, which is
calculated or estimated according to the nodes in the
transmission paths at time n-l, so, here, clearly discloses
different time instants, the channel estimation is measured,
so, clearly different channel estimates or different received
estimated value is measured for the different transmission
paths at time instants n and time instants n-1 , See, col. 3
lines 40-50 discloses that the a method of estimating flat
fading channels in CDMA communication system wherein
the sum of squares of errors between estimated value and
actual value of received signal in paths between nodes from
time n-1 to n.

Answer 14.

The Examiner also finds:
[T]he claim language recites only “transforming the time
varying response to the at least one flat fading estimate utilizing
the at least one signal to noise ratio algorithm” that is clearly
described as mentioned above in Li’s reference as see, [0049]
clearly disclose the estimated value of the channel fading
expected from the RLSK at time and error between it and the
value of the channel fading at time n-k predicted RLSL is the
estimated error, which is used to adjust the coefficient of the
adaptive filter and see, [0046] discloses the RLS lattice filter for
optimal channel filter which adjust dynamically with the
changing channel conditions. Therefore, examiner here
maintained his position as the transforming function here
Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

6
utilizes the SNR optimization algorithm which is RLS
(recursive least square) algorithm. As claim recites only SNR
optimization algorithm however, does not disclose in claim as
how SNR values are utilized for such optimization as all the
equalization function like MMSE, LMS or RLS such
algorithms implicitly utilized as equalizer to reduce the error in
received signal to optimize the signal, thus, one of ordinary
skilled in the art would broadly interpret the RLS algorithm as
SNR optimization algorithm.

Answer 21-22.
Appellants’ arguments in regard to the employment of the SNR ratio
algorithm are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, because as the
Examiner surmises, it is not disclosed “in [the] claim as how SNR values are
utilized for such optimization.” See Appeal Brief 12-13; Answer 21.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and therefore we
do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Therefore, for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (14-
31) as discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as, the obviousness rejections of both independent claims 11
and 21 having commensurate claims limitations with claim 1.
Appellants argue that dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 are
distinguished over the prior art cited in the various obviousness rejections
based upon the deficiency of the Li and Nissila combination. Appeal Brief
32-39. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner in the Answer (14-
31) as discussed above. Further, “[a] statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).
Subsequently, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 22-30 fall with the
Appeal 2011-006486
Application 11/173,502

7
respective independent claim from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2010).

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-30 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc