Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

12866431 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/866,431 12/09/2010
120491 7590 11/01/2016
Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
2010 Corporate Ridge
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bengt Lindoff
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.
0110-279 1504
EXAMINER
ODOM, CURTIS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
info@leffleriplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF and ANDERS ROSENQVIST
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, SHARON PENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 1-19, all the pending claims in the
present application. (Appeal Br. 6.) Claims 20-22 are cancelled. (Id. at
15.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to the processing of a received signal in
the presence of interference by filtering the received signal using at least a
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
L M Ericsson. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431
first filter having at least a first filter characteristic to suppress the
interference. A desired data stream from the filtered received signal is then
determined, based on information about the first filter characteristic.
(Spec. Abstract.) The detection of the desired data stream from the
filtered signal using knowledge of the filter makes it possible to (at least
partly) compensate for the effects of the attenuation of the desired signal
caused by the notch in the filtering step. (Spec. 8:25-28.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative:
1. A method for processing a received signal in the
presence of an interference of a first type within the bandwidth
of a desired signal of the received signal, the method
compnsmg:
filtering the received signal using at least a first filter
having at least a first filter characteristic to produce a filtered
signal, wherein the interference of the first type is suppressed;
and
determining a desired data stream from the filtered
signal,
wherein the step of determining the desired data stream
from the filtered signal comprises basing the determination at
least on information about the first filter characteristic.
References
Nuutinen US 7,016,439 B2 Mar. 21, 2006
Yoshida US 2006/0268963 A 1 Nov. 30, 2006
Doppler US 2008/0070510 Al Mar. 20, 2008
Hou US 2008/0084940 Al Apr. 10, 2008
Rejections
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Hou. (Final Action 4-6.)
2
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431
Claims 6, 7, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
unpatentable over Hou in combinations with Doppler, Nuutinen, and
Yoshida. (Final Action 6-8.)
ANALYSIS
"determining a desired data stream" based at least on
"information about the first filter characteristic"
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Hou discloses the
determination of a desired data stream from a filtered signal based on
information about a filter characteristic of a filter used to filter the received
signal, as in claim 1?
Hou teaches an emitted signal s(t), which is an OFDM signal
containing a number of separately-modulated sub-carriers, and which is
processed to yield a decoded data channel free from the influence of co-
channel interference. (Hou ,-i,-i 23, 46, Fig. 3C.) Figure 3C of Hou is
3
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431
reproduced below:
3a
s(t)
1
,..---- - ----------- - -~~ __________ ._ ____ - -,
321 322 : 323 325 ' { ( : ( ( i
\~: ' '
RF ln(I) : Y{t) frequency-domain __ i,Y'(f)
demodulato ---------r- DFT · -- notch filter -:
: GI
l Removing
1 unit
I
327
Match
filter
; ; Chan11e1
330 331
Vitert>i
decoder
,,.----/"
I
32
RS
d8alder
1 ' estimator
i 3 4 '·-· ~-~
: 1 -- 32s- - - 32;) i
: I a CR I :
I~ '
J ~ CCI. ii
: I calculator companng I :
' ~It :
~ L_ ~--~=--~- - - ~ I
L-----------------------------------J
DOA'
FIG. 3C
H'"(n,k)Y'(n,k) 329
. (
Soft
328 demapper
0
Figure 3C of Hou is a schematic diagram showing the emitted signal s(t)
being processed to produce a decoded data channel DDA'. (Hu iii! 27-46.)
An estimated error calculated by calculator 326a is used by CCI comparing
unit 326b to provide a weighting coefficient M(k) to frequency-domain
notch filter 325. (Id. iii! 31-41.)
The Examiner finds that Hou discloses the invention of claim 1.
(Final Action 4.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that the determination of
a desired data stream based on at least a first filter characteristic of a filter
used to produce a filtered signal is disclosed by the use of the weighting
coefficient M(k) (mapped to the claimed first filter characteristic) of the
frequency-domain notch filter 325 (mapped to the claimed first filter) during
4
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431
subsequent processing of the signal by match filter 327 and/or channel
estimator 328. (Id.)
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the disclosure of
the disputed limitation in Hou:
The technology disclosed by Hou performs filtering (i.e.,
weighting of sub-carriers as performed by the frequency-
domain notch filter 325), but the filtered signal is then provided
to a match filter 327 and to a channel estimator 328, neither of
which bases its output on any information about what the
weighting coefficients are. [ ... ] This can be seen in Hou's Fig.
3, which lacks any feed forwarding of information about the
notch filter 325 to any of the components 327, 328, or 329.
(App. Br. 7.)
The Examiner finds that the weighting coefficient in Hou is provided
to the match filter and soft demapper in the form of the channel parameter
H'(n,k) which is provided by the channel estimator 328. (Final Action 2-3;
Answer 7-8.) The Examiner further finds that "in order to generate the
channel parameter, information such as the value of the weighting
coefficient M(k) must be known." (Final Action at 2.) The Examiner bases
this conclusion on Equation 7 of Hou. (Final Action 2-3; Answer 7-8.)
Hou' s Equation 7 states two relationships for the estimated channel
parameter H'(n,k): (a) it is equal to notched frequency domain data
Y'(n,k)/C(n,), and (b) it is approximately equal(":::::;") to the M(k)H(n,k),
where M(k) is the weighting coefficient and H(n,k) is the channel response
in frequency-domain. (Hou ,-i 43.) We agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 7-
8) that Hou states that the channel parameters H'(n,k) are generated based on
the filtered signal Y'(n,k) and not on the weighting coefficient M(k). We
find that the presence of the weighting coefficient M(k) in Hou's Equation 7
5
Appeal2015-002856
Application 12/866,431
does not disclose that the weighting coefficient IvI(k) is known or used by
the match filter or channel estimator.
Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments regarding the disputed
limitation to be persuasive. Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of independent claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 12 containing
commensurate limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the anticipation
rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, and 19. Additionally,
we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 6, 7, 9,
16, and 18, based in part on the reasoning of the anticipation rejection.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-
5, 8, 10-15, 17, and 19 as anticipated by Hou.
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6,
7, 9, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Hou in combination with various other
prior art references.
REVERSED
6