Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2009

10046639 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BIN LI, ALBERTO GINESI, and SONG ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided:1 June 18, 2009
____________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The present invention relates to error-correcting codes (e.g., Reed-
Solomon (RS) codes) that are useful for data transfer in relatively poor
transmission environments (e.g., Digital Subscriber Line technology over
phone lines, cable modems, digital satellite signals, and digital TV
broadcasts). (See generally Spec. ¶ ¶ [05] - [10].)
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. An iterative method for determining parameters for a forward
error correction scheme for improving the quality of a data
transmission, said method comprising the steps of:
(a) establishing a relationship between said parameters and a
coding gain;
(b) initializing said coding gain to a minimum predetermined
value;
(c) determining, based on said relationship between said
parameters and said coding gain, an intermediate set of parameters for
providing a preferred result for said coding gain;
(d) incrementing a value of said coding gain by a predetermined
value and repeating said step (c) until said coding gain reaches a
predefined maximum value, thereby determining a plurality of
intermediate sets of parameters; and
(e) determining a preferred set of parameters from said plurality
of intermediate sets of parameters, wherein said preferred set of
parameters provides said forward error correction scheme with an
optimal set of values for balancing a code length and an error rate of
said data transmission.

2
Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639

The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability.
Locke et al US 6,598,188 Jul. 22, 2003

Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Locke.

Section 102(e) rejection over Locke
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
This appeal turns on whether Appellants have demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in finding that Locke describes an iterative process that uses
a “coding gain” as set forth in illustrative claim 1.
Initially, we note there appears to be no dispute with respect to the
basic definition of “coding gain,” which is set forth in the Specification. The
Examiner seems to acknowledge that the indication in the Specification is
consistent with the recognized meaning in the art. (See Ans. 7-8.) “The
term ‘coding gain’ refers to the difference in power that the non-error
correcting system would require to transmit data of a specified bit error rate
as compared to the power required by the error correcting system.” (Spec. ¶
[21].)
Locke uses the term “coding gain” at column 4, lines 25 through 28,
apparently in reference to pseudo code at the top of column 5. The
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 3-4), however, refers to material in the
3
Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639

Abstract and in columns 27 and 28 of Locke. The rejection of the other
independent claims on appeal (10, 15, 16, 20, and 21) relies on the same
portion of Locke. (See Ans. 7.)
The Examiner’s responsive arguments in the Answer suggest,
however, that the “correcting power” described by Locke (e.g., cols. 27-28)
is deemed to relate to the “coding gain” as claimed. The Examiner refers to
pseudo code at the middle of column 7 of Locke as a program for
“correcting power factor for each coding gain and branches out for example,
if the minimum gap is greater than the required gap.” (Ans. 8, ¶ 2.)
Instant claim 1 recites, in part, “(b) initializing said coding gain to a
minimum predetermined value,” which, by the way, we do not see in the
pseudo code at column 5 of Locke that concerns “coding gain.” The pseudo
code at column 7 describes computing or selecting the correct “correcting
power” by, initially, setting the “required gap” to the “min gap,” a step
which may be considered as initializing a quantity to a minimum
predetermined value.
However, as pointed out by Appellants in the Reply Brief (at 3-4),
Locke does not describe the “correcting power” as being consistent with, or
relating to, the definition of “coding gain” that is accepted by both
Appellants and the Examiner.
As set forth in the bottom half of the pseudo code at column 5 of
Locke, “t is the effective correcting power of the proposed RS codeword,”
defined as “parity bytes per codeword/(loss*2).” “Loss” is the “burst error
coding loss,” defined in steps just prior to the definition of effective
correcting power. “Parity bytes” are, in essence, bytes added to a codeword
for the purpose of correcting errors in codeword bytes. See Locke col. 1, ll.
4
Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639

53-59; col. 2, ll. 22-36. The “correcting power” in Locke is thus defined
differently from the “coding gain” in the Specification, and distinct from the
occurrence of the term “coding gain” elsewhere in the reference.
Moreover, Locke describes the “gap,” which is set to an initial
minimum in the algorithm disclosed in column 7, not as “coding gain” but as
mean squared error (MSE). See Locke col. 2, ll. 37-40; col. 4, ll. 16-19.
The Examiner’s position with respect to the “correcting power”
described by Locke may be founded on the belief that a different coding gain
would relate to each respective iteration of the “correcting power” steps
shown in the pseudo code at column 7. For the purposes of this appeal, we
can treat such a postulate as fact. However, the claims require specific
operations on, and using, “coding gain” -- e.g., claim 1, “initializing said
coding gain to a minimum predetermined value” -- that have not been shown
on this record to be described by Locke.
We are thus persuaded by Appellants of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, and cannot sustain the § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 24.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Locke is reversed.

REVERSED

5
Appeal 2008-001740
Application10/046,639

PEB

MEREK, BLACKMON & VOORHEES, LLC
673 S. WASHINGTON ST.
ALEXANDRIA VA 22314
6