Ex Parte Kent et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2012

11173689 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 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.
11/173,689 06/30/2005 Mark Kent 3875.0520001 9100
26111 7590 09/11/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KIM, WESLEY LEO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2012 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 MARK KENT, VINKO ERCEG,
URI LANDAU, and PIETER VAN ROOYEN
____________

Appeal 2010-001848
Application 11/173,689
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2010-001848
Application 11/173,689
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-30. The Appellants appealed
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirmed-in-part. See Decision on
Appeal (mailed June 27, 2012). The Appellants now request rehearing of
our affirmance of the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4-9, 11, 14-19, 21,
and 24-29.
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal.
1. A method for processing signals in a receiver, the
method comprising:
generating at least one control signal that is utilized to
control at least a first of a plurality of received signals; and
adjusting a phase of said first of said plurality of received
signals via said generated at least one control signal so that said
phase of said first of said plurality of received signals is
equivalent to a phase of at least a second of said plurality of
received signals, wherein said phase of said first signal is
adjusted within a processing path used to process said first of
said plurality of received signals,
and wherein said at least one control signal is generated
based on one or both of at least one channel function estimate
and/or signal timing information associated with a digitized
baseband signal corresponding to said first and said second of
said plurality of received signals.

DISCUSSION
The issue is whether the Appellants have shown that we should
consider their new arguments or new evidence.
In our original opinion, we agreed with the Examiner's following
findings and conclusions.
Seo's teachings can broadly read on the limitation from
Figure 3, element S6, which says that power (i.e. channel
Appeal 2010-001848
Application 11/173,689
3
estimate) of the first and second signals are measured based on
the baseband signal to control the signals as specified in
Figure 3 S1 and S2. S1 and S2 generate the control signals.
(Ans. 9.)
The Appellants argued that a "channel estimation of a received signal
is not equivalent to determining signal power. A 'channel estimate' of a
signal is a term of art, which is different from signal 'power'. Therefore, the
Examiner has incorrectly equated measuring signal power with determining
a channel estimate of a signal." (Reply Br. 5.)
As noted in our decision (Decision 4-5), we were unpersuaded by the
Appellants' arguments based on the preponderance of the evidence before
us. More specifically, apart from merely alleging that a "channel estimate"
is a term of art different from signal power, Appellants failed to provide any
evidence to support this assertion, let alone provide evidence supporting the
meaning of "channel function estimate" to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
construction.
The Appellants now argue that claims 1, 11, and 21 should be read in
light of Paragraph 0041 of their Specification. (Req. Reh’g 6.) They also
argue that an estimate is not an actual value and that a function is not a
discrete value. (Id.)
Because we were unpersuaded that the Examiner’s construction of the
recited channel function estimate was erroneous given its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure based on the arguments in
Appellants’ Briefs (see Decision 4-5), we decline to change that decision
based on arguments raised for the first time in Appellants’ rehearing request.
"Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not
previously relied upon in the briefs are not permitted in the request for
Appeal 2010-001848
Application 11/173,689
4
rehearing except as permitted by paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section." 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1). Here, the arguments in the Request for
Rehearing were raised in neither their Appeal Brief nor their Reply Brief.
Furthermore, the Appellants have not alleged, let alone shown, that the
argument should be permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.79(b)(1)(2) or (b)(3).
Therefore, we conclude that the Appellants have not shown that we
should consider their new arguments or evidence. We therefore decline to
change our decision which was based on Appellants’ Briefs and the
Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
We have granted the Appellants' request for rehearing to the extent
that we have reconsidered our original affirmance of the Examiner's
rejection in view of the Appellants' arguments. We decline, however, to
reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 1, 4-9, 11, 14-19, 21, and 24-29.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED

Vsh