Ex Parte Lida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

15006049 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/006,049 01/25/2016
16759 7590 09/26/2018
Active Knowledge Ltd.
P.O. Box294
Kiryat Tivon, 36011
ISRAEL
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
EyranLida
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.
Va_EMI1 8587
EXAMINER
YU,LIHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
taltiber@gmail.com
ari.frank@gmail.com
giltib@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYRAN LIDA, GABY GUR COHEN,
A VIV SALAMON, and ISRAEL GREISS
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 11.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 3
1 Appellants identify Valens Semiconductor Ltd., as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Claims 12-24 have been cancelled. Claims 3-5 and 10 have been
conditionally allowed if rewritten in independent claim form including all
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 10.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 25, 2016,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed April 11, 2017, the Appeal
Brief("App. Br.") filed September 18, 2017, the Examiner's Answer
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "[t]ransceivers and methods able to
recover within less than 1 millisecond from quality degradation in the
transceiver's operating point." (Abstract.) Appellants' invention
"indicat[es] ... [to a] second transceiver to transmit[] known data" shortly
after identifying quality degradation in a first transceiver's operating point,
and "within less than 1 millisecond from identifying the quality degradation,
the [first] transceiver utilizes the known data to improve the accuracy of the
slicing errors" in the first transceiver. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 8 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A transceiver configured to recover within less than 1
millisecond from quality degradation in its operating point,
compnsmg:
a receiver analog front end (Rx APE), an adaptive module
comprising at least one of an adaptive digital equalizer, an
adaptive digital canceller, and an adaptive digital equalizer and
canceller (ADEC), and a slicer;
the Rx APE receives a signal of more than 500 Mbps from
a second transceiver over a link, and feeds the signal to the
ADEC that generates a slicer input signal;
the slicer utilizes the slicer input signal to generate slicing
decisions and slicing errors; wherein the slicing errors are used
to adapt the ADEC;
shortly after identifying quality degradation in the
transceiver's operating point, the transceiver indicates the second
transceiver to transmit known data; and
("Ans.") mailed November 16, 201 7, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
January 14, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
within less than 1 millisecond from identifying the quality
degradation, the transceiver utilizes the known data to improve
accuracy of the slicing errors, which enables fast adaptation of
the ADEC, that improves the quality in the transceiver's
operating point to a level that enables the transceiver to indicate
the second transceiver to transmit data.
(App. Br. 14--17 (Claims App.).)
REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Goodman et al. (US 5,473,321, issued Dec. 5, 1995) ("Goodman"),
Chu et al. (US 2013/0155953 Al, published June 20, 2013) ("Chu"), and Lo
et al. (US 6,097,767, issued Aug. 1, 2000) ("Lo"). (Final Act. 5-8.)
(2) Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Goodman, Chu, Lo, and Bohn et al. (US 2005/0201757 Al, published Sept.
15, 2005) ("Bohn"). (Final Act. 8-9.)
(3) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Goodman, Chu, Lo, and Shimosawa et al. (US 2012/0024566 Al, published
Feb. 2, 2012) ("Shimosawa"). (Final Act. 9-10.)
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds
Goodman's surface modem 505 teaches a transceiver (a first transceiver)
configured to recover from quality degradation, including a receiver analog
front end/Rx APE (Goodman's automatic gain control circuit 507), an
adaptive digital equalizer and canceller/ADEC (Goodman's adaptive FIR
filter-equalizer 510) and a slicer (Goodman's slicer 512), as claimed. (Final
Act. 5-6 (citing Goodman col. 4, 11. 59---65, col. 5, 1. 53---col. 6, 1. 67, col. 7,
3
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
11. 16-27, Figs. 4--5).) The Examiner also finds Goodman's oil well logging
sonde 502 teaches a second transceiver, as claimed. (Final Act. 5---6 ( citing
Goodman Fig. 5).) The Examiner further finds Goodman teaches that
shortly after identifying quality degradation in the transceiver's operating
point, the transceiver (Goodman's surface modem 505) indicates to the
second transceiver (Goodman's sonde 502) to transmit "known data"
(Goodman's training sequence for repeatedly training the surface modem),
as claimed. (Final Act. 6 (citing Goodman col. 3, 11. 30-41, col. 4, 11. 49-
67).) The Examiner also finds Goodman's transceiver (surface modem 505)
utilizes the known data to improve accuracy of its slicing errors, enabling
fast adaptation of the ADEC and improving the quality in the transceiver's
operating point, as required by claims 1 and 8. (Final Act. 6-7 ( citing
Goodman col. 4, 11. 59-67, col. 7, 11. 3-67).)
To support the conclusion of obviousness, the Examiner relies on (1)
Chu for teaching the claimed "receiving a signal of more than 500 Mbps"
and (2) Lo for teaching a time period that is "within less than 1 millisecond"
as claimed. (Final Act. 7 (citing Chu ,r 8; Lo col. 7, 11. 29--40).)
Appellants contend the combination of Goodman, Chu, and Lo does
not teach or suggest a "within less than 1 millisecond from identifying the
quality degradation, utilizing the known data to improve ... the quality in the
transceiver's operating point to a level that enables the transceiver to indicate
the second transceiver to transmit data," as recited in claim 1 and similarly
in claim 8. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.)
We agree with Appellants. As Appellants explain, Goodman's
training sequence (Examiner's asserted "known data") is not used by the
transceiver (Goodman's surface modem 505) during data exchange, to
4
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
improve quality in the transceiver's operating point to a level that enables
the recovery from quality degradation and the continuation of data exchange,
as required by claims 1 and 8. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3--4.) Rather,
Goodman only teaches transmitting the "training sequence to automatically
'train' [the surface modem's] adaptive FIR filter-equalizer" in a training
mode, which is separate from and precedes the surface modem's operational
mode (a mode for exchanging actual data, e.g., downhole logging
measurements). (See Goodman col. 3, 11. 62---64, col. 4, 11. 13-25, col. 4, 11.
49-57, col. 11, 11. 54---61 ("the present invention contemplates ending the
training mode by first waiting for the training generator output 514b and the
slicer output 512a [to] match each other, and then waiting for a
predetermined time to ensure that the coefficient signals have stabilized,"
where "the predetermined time corresponds to about 1000 symbols, which
would require about 100 ms"), Abstract ("After the surface modem is
trained, the system operates in an 'operational mode,' in which the sonde
transmits data corresponding to downhole measurements").)
That is, Goodman's "training mode uses the training sequence, while
the operational mode does NOT use the training sequence." (App. Br. 8,
10 (citing Goodman col. 4, 11. 43--48, col. 6, 11. 19-27).) Goodman's training
sequence (known data) does not improve accuracy of slicing errors or enable
fast adaptation of Goodman's FIR equalizer (ADEC) during Goodman's
data exchange ( operational mode); rather, "[i]n the operational mode,
[Goodman's] filter-equalizer uses the slicer output, instead of the training
sequence generator output, to adjust the coefficient signals." (See Goodman
col. 4, 11. 45--48 (emphasis added); see also Goodman col. 9, 11. 22-29
("After task 821 [in training mode], task 822 places the surface modem 505
5
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
in the operational mode" in which "the multiplexer 814 ... directs signals
from the slicer 512, instead of signals from the training sequence generator
516, to the output 514c" so that "the filter-equalizer 510 will continue to re-
adjust its coefficient signals in accordance with the error between the filter-
equalizer's output signal (510b) and the slicer output signal (512a)"); App.
Br. 10; Reply Br. 3.)
That is, Goodman's training sequence (known data) is not used by the
transceiver (Goodman's surface modem 505) to recover from quality
degradation during data exchange and to improve the quality in the
transceiver's operating point, as claimed. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3--4.)
Rather, Appellants' "known data" from the second transceiver is used during
the (first) transceiver's data exchange mode, to enable fast ADEC adaptation
and improve the quality in the (first) transceiver's operating point to a level
that enables continuation of the data exchange. (See App. Br. 14, 16 (Claims
App.).) Goodman also does not teach its transceiver (surface modem 505)
can recover within less than 1 millisecond from quality degradation in its
operating point by using known data, as claimed. (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br.
2-3.) Goodman discloses training with the known data (training sequence)
takes much longer than 1 millisecond-for example, it may take several
hundred milliseconds or even 25 seconds. (See Goodman col. 3, 11. 22-24,
col. 11, 11. 55---61, col. 12, 11. 23-25; App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2-3.)
Lo does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Goodman.
Lo similarly fails to teach the claimed transceiver recovery time being within
less than 1 millisecond from quality degradation by using known data, as
claimed. (App. Br. 10-11.) Rather, Lo discloses "determining the optimum
equalizer setting can be executed within one millisecond of exiting the blind
6
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
wait state 7 4." (See Lo col. 7, 11. 3 7-39 ( emphasis added); see also Final
Act. 7.) Lo's "blind wait state 74" is a state of"about 160 milliseconds"
entered by a communication network receiver when a network "cable is first
plugged into the receiver," "the blind wait state 74 prevent[ing] the
[receiver's] equalizer controller 36 from calibrating on a noisy signal." (See
Lo col. 6, 11. 3-20 (emphasis added).) Upon exiting the blind wait state, the
receiver's equalizer in Lo determines an optimum receiver setting for
reducing random jitter caused by the network cable. (See Lo col. 4, 11. 45-
50, col. 6, 11. 21-24, col. 7, 11. 24--25.) Thus, Lo does not teach a
transceiver's "recover[y] within less than 1 millisecond from quality
degradation in its operating point" by utilizing known data to improve
accuracy of slicing errors "within less than 1 millisecond from identifying
the quality degradation" as claimed. (App. Br. 10, 14 (Claims App.).)
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Chu,
Bohn, and Shimosawa make up for the above-noted deficiencies of
Goodman and Lo. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8, and claims 2, 6, 7,
9, and 11 dependent therefrom. 4
4 In the event of further prosecution, we suggest the Examiner review
claims 1 and 8 for compliance with the enablement requirement of
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) relative to recovering from quality degradation "within
less than 1 millisecond" ( e.g., "A transceiver configured to recover within
less than 1 millisecond from quality degradation in its operating point," in
which "within less than 1 millisecond from identifying the quality
degradation, the transceiver utilizes the known data to improve accuracy of
the slicing errors" as recited in claim 1 ). (See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229
(CCPA 1976); see also MPEP § 2172.01 (Unclaimed Essential Matter).)
7
Appeal2018-003206
Application 15/006,049
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-9, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
8