Ex Parte Lindberg

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

09960351 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDERS LINDBERG
____________

Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention test receives alternative reception frequencies in
a radio frequency receiver by predicting and evaluating an interruption to
determine whether it will be an adequate duration. If so, the reception
frequency changes. See generally Abstract; Spec. 18-19; Fig. 3. Claim 1 is
illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351

2
1. A method of test receiving alternative reception frequencies in a
receiver receiving a continuous flow of information of a unidirectional
digital broadcasting transmission at a first reception frequency, the
continuous flow of information including specific user terminating
information transmitted in clusters, the receiver including an information
transfer routine that extracts a flow of specific user terminating information
from the received continuous flow of information, the method comprising:

predicting an interruption in the form of a natural break in the
transmitted flow of specific user terminating information, based on an
indication of the end of a cluster of the specific user terminating information,
where the indication of the end of the cluster of specific user terminating
information is part of the specific user terminating information;

evaluating the interruption to determine whether it will be of an
adequate length of time, and generating a positive response if it is evaluated
that the interruption will be of an adequate length of time;

changing the reception frequency of the receiver from the first
reception frequency to an alternative reception frequency if the evaluation
has generated a positive response;

test receiving the alternative reception frequency;

enabling reception and extraction of the flow of specific user
terminating information.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jensen (US 5,671,219; Sept. 23, 1997). Ans. 3-7.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 19,
2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 16, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351

3
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Jensen discloses every recited feature of
independent claim 1 except for receiving a continuous flow of information
of a unidirectional digital broadcasting transmission, but nonetheless finds
that Jensen suggests this feature in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 3-5.
Appellant argues that Jensen does not predict an interruption in the
transmitted flow of specific user terminating information based on an
indication of the end of a cluster, where the indication is part of the specific
user terminating information, let alone evaluate the interruption to determine
if it will be an adequate time length as claimed. Br. 5-6.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Jensen would have taught or suggested (1) predicting an interruption in
the form of a natural break in transmitted flow of specific user terminating
information based on an indication of the end of a cluster, where the
indication is part of the specific user terminating information, and (2)
evaluating the interruption to determine if it will be an adequate time length?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1. The Examiner cites Jensen’s handoff procedure as
teaching the recited interruption prediction and evaluation. Ans. 3-5, 7-10.
According to the Examiner, Jensen monitors information packets (i.e.,
“clusters”) received within a “set interval or period,” and switches to a
Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351

4
previously-stored channel if overall link quality drops below a measurement
threshold. Ans. 4, 8.
The Examiner, however, does not squarely map the recited “specific
user terminating information” to particular aspects of Jensen’s received
packets or “clusters,” and in particular, what specifically corresponds to the
recited end-of-cluster indication that is part of the specific user terminating
information. Appellant contends that the Examiner maps the recited end-of-
cluster indication to link quality dropping below a measurement threshold
(Br. 6) which, according to Jensen, triggers handoff to another base station.
Jensen, col. 15, ll. 47-67; Fig. 4.
The Examiner’s interpretation of what exactly corresponds to the
recited end-of-cluster indication, however, is unclear on this record: it may
or may not comport with Jensen’s link quality determination—we simply
cannot tell based on the Examiner’s somewhat ambiguous position and
limited explanation in this regard. See Ans. 4, 8.
But even assuming, without deciding, that (1) Jensen predicts natural-
break interruptions in transmitted information based on this received
information,2 and (2) certain data in Jensen’s received packets indicates the
end of a packet and is part of “specific user terminating information,” we
still cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that Jensen evaluates the
interruption to determine if it will be an adequate time length as claimed.
As Appellant indicates (Br. 6), Jensen evaluates link quality based on signal
strength and frame errors—not the interruption’s duration—let alone

2 Contrary to Appellant’s assertion (Br. 5-6), predicting interruptions in a
received signal likewise predicts interruptions in a transmitted signal since a
receiver receives transmitted signals.
Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351

5
whether this duration is “adequate” as claimed. See Jensen, col. 15, ll. 47-
67; Fig. 4.
According to Appellant’s Specification, a “sufficient” duration for
changing reception frequency preferably is time for two reception changes
and the test reception itself. Spec. 18:8-11. A sufficient duration is also
possibly time for descrambling due to, for example, interleaving when
returning to the first reception frequency. Spec. 18:11-13 (emphases added).
This description of an “adequate” time length informs our construction, but
is hardly limiting in view of the emphasized permissive terms noted above
and claim differentiation principles. See Appellant’s claim 5 (narrowing an
“adequate” time length to the time required for one test reception and one
frequency change).
Despite its breadth, however, the Examiner does not squarely address
exactly what constitutes evaluating an interruption for an “adequate” length
of time in Jensen. Although the Examiner indicates that Jensen monitors
packets within a “set” interval or period in connection with handoff (Ans. 3-
4, 8-10), we cannot say—nor has the Examiner shown—that this evaluates
the interruption to determine its duration, let alone an “adequate” duration.
Nor will we speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
What we can say, however, is that the Examiner’s gloss on the recited
temporal aspect of the interruption evaluation is untenable on this record.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 30 which recites commensurate
limitations; and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons.

Appeal 2010-009108
Application 09/960,351

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-37 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-37 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk