Ex Parte Ko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2016

12922681 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/922,681 09/14/2010
35884 7590 10/27/2016
LEE, HONG, DEGERMAN, KANG & W AIMEY
660 S. FIGUEROA STREET
Suite 2300
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
Woo Suk Ko
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.
2080-3758 2332
EXAMINER
HARLEY, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/27/2016 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):
uspto@lhlaw.com
ip.lhlaw@gmail.com
ip.lhlaw@live.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOO SUK KO and SANG CHUL MOON
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, and 14. Claims 2, 6, 8-11, and 13 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to an apparatus for
and a method of transmitting and receiving a signal which includes a Layer 1
(L 1) signaling region where the L 1 signaling has an adaptive L 1 block
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
structure (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of transmitting at least one broadcasting signal
frame having Physical Layer Pipe (PLP) data and preamble data,
the method comprising:
mapping bits of the PLP data into PLP data symbols and
bits of the preamble data into preamble data symbols;
building at least one data slice based on the PLP data
symbols;
building a signal frame based on the preamble data
symbols and the at least one data slice, the at least one data slice
carrying one or multiple PLPs, the preamble data symbols
including Layer- I (L 1) signaling information for signaling the at
least one data slice;
modulating the signal frame by an Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplexing (OFDM) method; and
transmitting a broadcasting signal including data of the
modulated signal frame,
wherein the L 1 signaling information includes data slice
ID information that identifies the at least one data slice and PLP
ID information that identifies each PLP carried in the at least one
data slice, and
wherein a length of the data slice ID information is 8 bits.
12. A receiver for receiving a broadcasting signal, the receiver
compnsmg:
a demodulator configured to demodulate the received
broadcasting signal by use of an Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) method;
a frame parser configured to obtain a signal frame from the
demodulated broadcasting signal, the signal frame comprising
preamble data symbols and at least one data slice, the at least one
data slice including Physical Layer Pipe (PLP) data symbols of
one or multiple PLPs, the preamble data symbols including L 1
2
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
signaling information, wherein the L 1 signaling information
includes data slice ID information that identifies the at least one
data slice and PLP ID information that identifies each PLP
carried in the at least one data slice and wherein a length of the
data slice ID information is 8 bits;
a symbol demapper configured to demap the preamble
data symbols into preamble data bits and the PLP data symbols
into PLP data bits; and
a low density parity check (LDPC) decoder configured to
decode the preamble data bits by a shortened and a punctured
LDPC scheme.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vare
Pekonen
US 2009/0103649 Al
US 2010/0085985 Al
REJECTIONS
Apr. 23, 2009
Apr. 8, 2010
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the
manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (Final Act. 2).
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vare and Pekonen (Final Act. 3-8).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
ISSUES
3 5 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph: Claims 12 and 14
Appellants argue their invention, as recited, is not indefinite as the
Specification describes corresponding structure (Br. 11-14). The issue
presented by the arguments is
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the recitation of claim
12 is indefinite?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue their Specification discloses corresponding structure
for the recited "demodulator configured to demodulate," "frame parser
configured to obtain," "symbol demapper configured to demap," and "low
density parity check (LDPC) decoder configured to decode" (Br. 11 ).
Appellants identify paragraphs and Figures of the Specification as disclosing
various modules and elements that describe the corresponding structure (id.
at 11-12).
Our analysis proceeds in two steps. Initially, we determine whether
the disputed limitation is recited in means-plus-function form pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. If we determine the relevant claim limitation
recites a means-plus-function limitation, a second inquiry is undertaken to
"attempt to construe the disputed claim term by identifying the
corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification to
which the claim term will be limited" (Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v
Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted)).
4
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
First Inquiry: 35 U.S.C § 112, sixth paragraph
For our first inquiry, we note 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph
provides:
[a Jn element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a
means or step for performing a specified function without the
recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such
claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
thereof
(35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (emphasis added)).
The Federal Circuit has established use of the term "means" is central
to the analysis of whether a claim limitation should be interpreted in
accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Use of the word "means"
creates a rebuttable presumption that the inventor intended to invoke 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, whereas failure to use the words "means for"
creates a rebuttable presumption that the inventor did not intend the
respective claim limitations to be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth
paragraph (Personalized Media Commc 'ns, LLC v. Int 'l Trade Comm 'n, 161
F.3d 696, 703-704 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, this presumption against its
invocation can be overcome and 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph applied, if
the "claim term fails to 'recite [] sufficiently definite structure' or else
recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that
function"' (Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (en bane) (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed.
Cir. 2000))).
First, we determine claim 12 does not recite the terms "means for" in
each element; rather, each limitation recited an element "configured to"
perform a function. More specifically, the limitations recite (emphases
5
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
added): "a demodulator conjzgured to demodulate," "a frame parser
coefzgured to obtain a signal frame," "a symbol demapper coefzgured to
demap," and "a low density parity check (LDPC) decoder coefzgured to
decode" (claim 12). Thus, we look to determine if the presumption against
invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph has been overcome and more
specifically, whether each of the limitations of claim 12 fails to recite
sufficiently definite structure for performing the function (Williamson, 792
F.3d at 1348 (citation omitted)). We therefore address each limitation
individually.
a demodulator configured to demodulate the received broadcasting signal:
The first limitation recites "a demodulator configured to demodulate
the received broadcasting signal by use of an Orthogonal Frequency
Division Multiplexing (OFDM) method" (Claim 12).
In Aristocrat Technologies Australia. Pty Ltd. v. International Game
Technology, 521F.3d1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court set forth that for a
claim to a programmed computer, a particular algorithm may be the
corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
For a patentee to claim a means for performing a particular
function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as
the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure
functional claiming. Because general purpose computers can be
programmed to perform very different tasks in very different
ways, simply disclosing a computer as the structure designated
to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the
claim to "the corresponding structure, material, or acts" that
perform the function, as required by section 112 paragraph 6
(id. at 1333). The Court went on to point out:
6
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
Thus, in a means-plus-function claim "in which the disclosed
structure is a computer, or microprocessor, programmed to carry
out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general
purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer
programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm." [WMS
Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir.
1999)]
(id.); (See also, Ex Parte Rodriguez, 92 USPQ2d 1395 (BPAI 2009)
(precedential); Ex parte Catlin, 90 USPQ2d 1603 (BP AI 2009)
(precedential) ).
Here, the claim limitation recites demodulating using an algorithm -
an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) method, which is
known in the art, see for example the teachings of Pokenen. As a result, we
determine the disclosed structure (demodulator) is a special purpose
computer programmed configured to demodulate the broadcast signal using
the OFDM method. It follows, we determine the first limitation, "a
demodulator configured to demodulate the received broadcasting signal by
use of an Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) method,"
does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
a symbol demapper configured to demap the preamble data symbols:
We next look to the limitation "a symbol demapper configured to
demap the preamble data symbols into preamble data bits and the PLP data
symbols into PLP data bits" (claim 12) to determine "whether the term is
one that is understood to describe structure, as opposed to a term that is
simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name
of structure and is simply a substitute for the term 'means for'" (Lighting
World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
7
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
2004) overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348--49). As
the Federal Circuit stated in Lighting World:
In Greenberg and subsequent cases, we have looked to the
dictionary to determine if a disputed term has achieved
recognition as a noun denoting structure, even if the noun is
derived from the function performed. See Greenberg, 91 F.3d at
1583 ("Dictionary definitions make clear that the noun 'detent'
denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in
the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in
functional terms."); Linear Tech. Corp., 379 F.3d at 1311
(technical dictionary makes clear that "circuit" is structural);
CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1369 (dictionary definitions consulted
to determine that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand
the term in question to have an ordinary meaning); Personalized
Media Communications, 161 F.3d at 704 (same).
(Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360-61). Here, we look to both general and
subject matter specific dictionaries 1 and find no evidence that the term
"symbol demapper" has achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure.
\Ve further reviewed prior art, but are unable to find evidence to support the
limitation denotes structure. Therefore, based upon our review of the record
before us, consultation of dictionaries, and a search of the prior art patents in
this field, we conclude the term "symbol demapper" is not an art-recognized
structure to perform the claimed function of demapping the preamble data
symbols, and further, determine claim 12 does not recite any other structure
that would perform the claimed function.
Next, we look to Appellants' Specification and determine the term
"symbol demapper" is not explicitly defined. Indeed, the Specification does
1 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press (5th ed, 2002); Merriam-
Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc. (11th ed. 2007);
Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books (21st ed. 2005).
8
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
not provide a description sufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art,
the meaning of the term. Thus, unlike, for example, the term "detector" as
used in the claim at issue in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v.
International Trade Commission, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998), we have no
basis for concluding the "symbol demapper" limitation evokes, for one of
ordinary skill in the art, either a particular structure or a variety of structures.
Instead, like the phrase "lever moving element" addressed in Mas-Hamilton
Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the "symbol
demapper" limitation does not denote a device( s) that takes its name from
the functions being performed or have a generally understood relevant
meaning in the art. Rather, the "symbol demapper" limitation could mean
every conceivable way or means of performing the "demap" function.
Accordingly, we conclude no structural context for determining the
characteristics of the claim element "a symbol demapper configured to
demap the preamble data symbols" exists other than to describe the function
of the element. We further conclude the claim element "symbol demapper
configured to" is a verbal construct not recognized as the name of a structure
and instead, is simply a substitute for a limitation in "means for" format.
It follows, we determine the limitation "symbol demapper configured
to demap the preamble symbol," invokes the application of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph because the limitation fails to describe sufficient structure;
rather, the limitation recites abstract elements "configured to" (i.e., "for")
causing actions (Advanced Ground Info. Sys., 830 F.3d at 1347).
9
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
a frame parser configured to obtain a signal frame and a low density parity
check (LDPC) decoder configured to decode the preamble data bits:
With respect to the two remaining limitations, we again review
general and technical specific dictionaries2, prior art, and Appellants'
disclosure in their Specification. More specifically, our search of the
dictionaries does not provide evidence that either of the two limitations has
achieved recognition as a noun denoting structure. We additionally searched
the prior art and have not found evidence that either the recited "frame
parser" or "low density parity check" limitations is used by ordinarily skilled
artisan as a noun to denote structure. Therefore, based upon our review of
the record before us, consultation of dictionaries, and a search of the prior art
patents in this field, we conclude neither of the limitations, "a frame parser
configured to obtain a signal frame" and "a low density parity check (LDPC)
decoder configured to decode the preamble data bits," is an art-recognized
structure to perform the claimed functions of obtaining a signal frame and
decoding the preamble data bits, respectively. Further, claim 12 does not
recite any other structure that would perform the claimed function.
Moreover, upon review of Appellants' Specification, we are unable to
identify either explicit definitions or a description sufficient to inform one of
ordinary skill in the art, the meaning of the term. Thus, we have no basis for
concluding either limitation evokes for one of ordinary skill in the art, a
particular structure or a variety of structures.
Accordingly, we conclude no structural context exists for determining
the characteristics of the claim elements, "a frame parser configured to
2 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press (5th ed, 2002); Merriam-
Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc. (11th ed. 2007);
Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary, CMP Books (21st ed. 2005).
10
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
obtain a signal frame" and "a low density parity check (LDPC) decoder
configured to decode the preamble data bits," other than to describe the
respective function of each of the elements. Therefore, we further conclude
each of the claim elements is a verbal construct not recognized as the name
of a structure and instead, is simply a substitute for a limitation in "means
for" format.
In conclusion, Appellants have not persuaded us any of the recited
limitations, "frame parser," "symbol demapper," andr "low density parity
check decoder," identifies or connotes a definite structure. More
specifically, we are not persuaded any of the terms "frame parser," "symbol
demapper," or "low density parity check (LDPC) decoder," is used in
"common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate
structure," such that it connotes sufficient structure to avoid the application
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1359,
overruled on other grounds by Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348--49).
Accordingly, we determine the each of the limitations, "frame parser
configured to obtain," "symbol demapper configured to demap," and "low
density parity check (LDPC) decoder configured to decode," invokes the
application of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph because each of the
limitations fails to describe sufficient structure and instead, recites abstract
elements "configured to" (i.e., "for") causing actions (see Advanced Ground
Info. Sys., 830 F.3d at 1347).
11
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
Second Inquiry: 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
As we have determined the recited limitations, the "frame parser," the
"symbol demapper," and the "low density parity check decoder" invoke 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, we next "construe the disputed claim term by
identifying the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification to which the claim term will be limited" (Robert Bosch, LLC v.
Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted)). If Appellants' Specification fails to set forth
adequate disclosure of the structure corresponding to the claimed function,
Appellants will have failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention, thereby rendering the claim indefinite (Blackboard, Inc. v.
Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Thus, for each recited limitation, we determine if Appellants'
Specification provides sufficient disclosure.
a frame parser configured to obtain a signal frame:
Appellants argue the structure of the recited "a frame parser" is
described in paragraph 173 and Figure 63 of published application US
2011/0044393, which corresponds to paragraph 178 of their Specification
(App. Br. 12). More specifically, Appellants assert the recited frame parser
is disclosed as including modules ("pilot removing module r404," "freq
deinterleaving module r403," and "frame header removing module r401 ")
and a merger ("OFDM symbol merger r402") (id.).
12
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
Figure 63 is reproduced below:
[Fig, 6.3]
!
·.:li:~n>nrit::m;v ..... "".! : ...... .....
!
1 ..... _
l ...........................
f4f)2'. r40l
,•
. ........ .
·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·- l '. SU'l~Jl
Figure 63 is an example of a frame parser (Spec. ,-r 61 ). Paragraph 178
of Appellants' Specification describes Figure 63:
FIG. 63 shows an example of frame parser. A pilot removing
module r404 can remove pilot symbol. A freq deinterleaving
module r403 can perform deinterleaving in the frequency
domain. An OFDM symbol merger r402 can restore data frame
from symbol streams transmitted in OFDM symbols. A frame
header removing module r401 can extract physical layer
signaling from header of each transmitted frame and remove
header. Extracted information can be used as parameters for
following processes in the receiver.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification fails to
disclose the recited "frame parser" has sufficient structure (Ans. 3--4).
Instead, we determine the claim limitation is a computer-implemented claim
limitation. For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under
35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure must include
the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or
processor disclosed in the specification into the special purpose computer
programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm (Aristocrat Tech., 521 F.3d
at1333; see also Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310,
1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite
sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or
13
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
performing a task" (Microsoft Computer Dictionary 23 (5th ed. 2002) (see
also Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 30 (1 Ph ed. 2007) defining
algorithm as "a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or
accomplishing some end esp. by a computer")). An applicant may express
the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical
formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides
sufficient structure" (Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Thus, because we determine the recited "frame parser" claim
limitation recites a computer-implemented function, we look to Appellants'
Specification for an algorithm for performing the claimed function of
"obtain[ing] a signal frame" (see claim 12). "An indefiniteness rejection
under§ 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the specification discloses
no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or processor"
(Aristocrat Tech., 521 F.3d at 1337-38).
Looking at Appellants' Specification, we determine the Specification
fails to provide instructions on how the claimed modules r401, r403, and
r404 along with the "OFDM symbol merger" r402, which could be part of a
general purpose computer, are actually capable of performing the claimed
function of obtaining a signal frame. Rather, for each of the modules and
the merger that form the "frame parser," only the function is described, with
no disclosure of any algorithm or how the various modules work together in
a sequence of steps to obtain a signal frame from the demodulated
broadcasting signal.
Mere reference to a general purpose computer or processor with
appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the
14
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
appropriate programming or to "software" without providing detail about the
means to accomplish the software function is not an adequate disclosure
(Aristocrat Tech., 521 F.3d at 1334; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41).
Indeed, the Specification simply recites the functions of the modules
and provides no guidance about how the described modules ensures that
those functions are performed, i.e., no algorithm is disclosed (See Advanced
Ground Info. Sys., 830 F.3d at 1349 ("A patentee cannot claim a means for
performing a specific function and subsequently disclose a 'general purpose
computer as the structure designed to perform that function' because this
'amounts to purely functional claiming"' (citing Aristocrat Tech., 521 F.3d
at 1333))).
Appellants' Specification simply recites the claimed functions of the
frame parser, while providing no disclosure about how the computer or
processor ensures that those functions are performed; therefore, we
determine the disclosure is not sufficient for an algorithm which, by
definition, must contain a sequence of steps (Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2009)).
The primary purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure
that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice to
the public of the extent of the legal protection afforded by the
patent, so that interested members of the public, e.g., competitors
of the patent owner, can determine whether or not they infringe
(All Dental Prodx, LLC v. Advantage Dental Prods., Inc., 309 F .3d 77 4,
779-80 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citing Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem.
Co., 520 U.S. 17, 28-29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, (1997))).
Here, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan reading the
recited "frame parser" of claim 12, "would understand the bounds of the
15
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
claim when read in light of the specification" (Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon
Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875 (Fed.Cir.1993). See also, Research Corp. Techs. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed.Cir.2010)).
As such, Appellants' Specification simply describes the "frame
parser" in terms of functions and provides no guidance about how the
described modules and the described merger ensures that those functions are
performed, i.e., provides no algorithm or sequence of steps in sufficient
detail, for performing the function. Accordingly, we conclude the claim
limitation, "a frame parser configured to obtain a signal frame" is indefinite
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
a symbol demapper configured to demap the preamble data symbols:
Appellants further argue the recited "symbol demapper" has sufficient
support for structure in paragraphs 174 to 176 and Figure 64 of published
application US 2011/0044393, which correspond to paragraphs 179 and 181
of their Specification (App. Br. 12). According to Appellants, the disclosed
"symbol deinterleaver r308," "ModCod extract r307," "Symbol demapper
r306 " "bit mux r305 " "Inner deinterleaver r304 " "bit mux r305 " "inner
' ' ' '
decoder r303," "outer deinterleaver r302" and "outer decoder r301 "are
sufficient to support the structure of the recited symbol demapper (id.).
16
Appeal2014-009519
Application 12/922,681
Figure 64 is reproduced below:
-r3~}6 f:~Ol :.3D"ti r3:CJ5 = ~.v--~ ::·3o:? :\it-2 ::301 11
,, ;:~~:{~-11:'.~ :4~~:,l-I ~~~ H;,i~:;~H:+:H~~!~~:l-l~~;t~~ -,~,,::;:~ i
~ t l ~ . : ................................. J .............................. ..
f~-sog--1 ::-':O~· : r:JOf;--1 r(}OS--~ :-304--: :