Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

14816671 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/816,671 08/03/2015
23494 7590 06/13/2018
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
II Han Kim
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.
TI-70447AAA 7734
EXAMINER
YU,LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte IL HAN KIM, TARKESH PANDE, and ANUJ BATRA
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 21--40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-20
were withdrawn from consideration (Final Act. 1 ), and cancelled (App. Br.
17 (Claims App.)).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments, Incorporated, as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2. Texas Instruments, Incorporated, is the applicant. Bib.
Data Sheet.
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "power line
communications and, more specifically, to ... using a preamble with band
extension in power line communications." Spec. ,r 10. Claim 21, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
21. A method comprising:
performing, by a power line communication (PLC)
device,
creating a robust packet data unit (PDU) having a
preamble, a header and a payload with bit-level repetition
applied to at least one portion of the robust PDU;
interleaving a portion of the robust PDU using an
interleaver per a subchannel to the robust PDU, wherein
the interleaved portion comprises a plurality of data
tones, each data tone having a data tone number;
inserting a plurality of pilot tones in the interleaved
portion;
using a nearest-pilot tone modulation scheme to
perform modulation on each data tone in the interleaved
portion with respect to a nearest one of the inserted pilot
tones; and
transmitting the robust PDU over a power line.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Okumura et al. us 5,896,374 Apr. 20, 1999
Miyauchi et al. US 2001/0052098 Al Dec. 13, 2001
Furutani US 6,986,081 Bl Jan.IO, 2006
Yonge, III et al. US 2006/0256883 Al Nov. 16, 2006
Ware et al. US 2009/0129505 Al May 21, 2009
Galli et al. US 2009/0175291 Al July 9, 2009
Morimoto et al. US 2009/0196165 Al Aug. 6,2009
2
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
Hosokawa et al. US 2010/0183087 Al July 22, 2010
Claims 21-23, 25-29, and 31 stand rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9,
11, 12, 13 and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 9,100,102 B2. Final Act.
3-5.
Claims 21, 24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 35, 38, and 40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a)2 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. ("Okumura")
and Hosokawa et al. ("Hosokawa"). Final Act. 6-10.
Claims 22 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Galli et al. Final Act. 10.
Claims 23 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Miyauchi et al. Final Act. 10-
1 1.
Claims 25 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Yonge, III et al. Final Act. 11-
12.
Claims 33 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Morimoto et al. Final Act. 12-
13.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Ware et al. Final Act. 13-14.
2 All prior art rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior
to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ("pre-
AIA"). See, e.g., Final Act 6.
3
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Okumura, Hosokawa, and Furutani. Final Act. 14--15.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed Jan. 27, 2017; "Reply Br." filed May 10, 2017) for the positions of
Appellants ; the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Aug. 31, 2016) and
Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed March 10, 2017) for the reasoning,
findings, and conclusions of the Examiner; and the Specification ("Spec."
filed Aug. 3, 2015, amended July 18, 2016). Only those arguments actually
made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that
Appellants did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
NONSTATUTORY DOUBLE PATENTING
Appellants do not present any arguments regarding the rejection for
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting, and have expressly stated
that the double patenting rejection is not being appealed. App. Br. 5.
Accordingly, Appellants have waived such arguments in this proceeding.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, we summarily sustain the
rejection for nonstatutory double patenting of claims 21-23, 25-29, and 31 3
over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 10, respectively, of U.S. Patent No.
US 9,100,102 B2, without prejudice to Appellants' ability to file a timely
terminal disclaimer to overcome said rejection.
3 In an apparent typographical or clerical error, Appellants misidentify the
rejected claims as "claims 1-20." See App. Br. 5.
4
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants' arguments regarding
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is whether the Examiner errs in
finding Okumura when combined with Hosokawa teaches or suggests "using
a nearest-pilot tone modulation scheme to perform modulation on each data
tone in the interleaved portion with respect to a nearest one of the inserted
pilot tones" (the "argued limitation"), as recited in claim 21 and similarly
recited in claim 26. 4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Okumura to teach all of the functional
limitations of the method recited in claim 21 performed by a communication
device, except for performance of the method by a PLC communication
device. Final Act. 6-8 (citing Okumura, abstract, cols. 3:5--40, 4:30--40,
13:51---61, 14:16--40, 18:15--45, 19:63---67, 20:50-55, 20:63---67, 21:1---6,
21:34--44, 24:32--44, Figs. 2B, 4, 9A, 14A, 18, 19, 26). The Examiner relies
on Hosokawa to teach that methods applicable to various types of
communication devices are also applicable to PLC devices. Final Act. 8
(citing Hosokawa, abstract, ,r 422). With regard to the argued limitation, the
Examiner finds Okumura teaches
using a nearest-pilot modulation scheme to perform modulation
on each data tone, in the interleaved portion with respect to a
nearest one of the inserted pilot tones (see Fig. 14A and col. 19,
lines 63-67, where Okumura describes that the pilot-inserted
data are modulated in secondary modulator 109; see Fig. 19 and
col. 4, lines 30-40 and col. 21, lines 34-44, where Okumura
4 Appellants' arguments present additional issues. However, because the
identified issue is dispositive of the appeal with regard to the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we do not reach the additional issues.
5
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
describes that important data are disposed near the inserted pilot
symbols)[.]
Final Act. 7.
Appellants contend "neither the Okumura nor the Hosokawa reference
discloses the recited nearest-pilot tone modulation scheme in which each
data tone in an interleaved portion of a robust PDU is modulated using f!
nearest inserted pilot tone." App. Br. 7 (italicized emphases added).
Appellants explain that "in accordance with the [S]pecification, a 'nearest-
pilot [tone] modulation scheme' is one in which each data tone is modulated
with respect to an inserted pilot tone that is nearest to it." Id. at 10; see also
id. at 2-3 (citing Spec. ,r,r 49, 53, 66-69, Fig. 13B). Appellants continue as
follows:
Okumura clearly states the secondary modulation step is
performed using the spreading code sequence received by the
secondary modulator 109. Appellant can find no teaching or
suggestion here that the each of the data symbols ( e.g., asserted
"data tones") received by the secondary modulator 109 is
modulated using a pilot symbol nearest to it. It does not appear
that the spreading code sequences used in the second modulation
step rely in any way on the inserted pilot symbols. Thus ...
there does not seem to be any indication that the pilot symbols
inserted by circuit 130 are used in any way to modulate the data
symbols in the secondary modulator 109. In summary, the pilot
symbols themselves, while present in the symbol sequence
following their insertion by circuit 130, do not appear to be used
at all in the modulation process of Okumura to transmit a data
frame, either by the primary modulator 108 or the secondary
modulator 109.
Id. at 10 (referring to Okumura Fig. 14A).
We agree with Appellants. In accordance with Appellants'
Specification,
6
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
robust modulation may be performed with respect to the nearest
pilot tone ("nearest-pilot tone modulation"). In other words,
[data] tones 1312-1314 may use the phase reference provided by
pilot tone 1311, whereas [data] tones 1315, 1316, and 1318-1320
may use the phase reference provided by pilot tone 1317, and so
on.
Spec. ,r 68 (referring to Fig. 13B). Appellants' Specification further
discloses that in the robust mode, the frequencies of both the header and the
payload (i.e., data tones) "are differential with respect to the nearest
payload." Id. ,r 53 (Tables 1 and 2). We conclude that a "nearest-pilot tone
modulation scheme," as recited in claim 21, is scheme in which at least one
modulation parameter (e.g., phase reference, frequency) of a data tone is
established based on, or by reference to, a modulation parameter of the
nearest pilot tone.
Okumura teaches pilot symbols interleaved between data slots
(Okumura, Figs, 18, 19), and further teaches that the interleaved pilot
symbols and data slots are modulated using a spreading code sequence (id.,
Fig. 14A). We assume, arguendo, that this would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill the art modulating to produce pilot tones interleaved among
data tones. However, we find nothing in the cited passages of Okumura that
teaches or suggests that the spreading code sequence modulation uses any
modulation parameter of the nearest pilot symbol or tone to establish, or as a
reference for, any modulation parameter of the data slots or tones.
Appellants have demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 21.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
(1) claim 21; (2) independent claim 26, which recites a limitation
substantially similar to the argued limitation ( compare Final Act. 18 ( Claims
App.), with id. at 17) and was rejected on the same basis as claim 21 (see id.
7
Appeal2017-008362
Application 14/816,671
at 6-8); and (3) claims 22-25 and 27--40, which variously depend, directly
or indirectly, from claim 21 or 26.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21-23, 25-29, and 31
for nonstatutory double patenting is summarily affirmed without prejudice to
Appellants' ability to file a terminal disclaimer to overcome said rejection.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21--40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8