Ex Parte Meyer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2013

10845471 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JACQUES MEYER
____________

Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge SMITH

Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge MORGAN

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

We vacate the decision entered November 14, 2013.
Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method for receiving a composite signal transmitted via a
nonlinear data transmission channel according to a modulation pattern using
a given constellation having a first signal UL and a second signal LL, the
method comprising:
demodulating and decoding said first signal UL by using a first
demodulation and decoding chain in order to regenerate first information of
said first signal UL;
from said first regenerated information, recoding a set of symbols of
complex number form z = x + jy representative of said constellation used for
transmission and, shaping to rebuild a continuous time waveform of said
symbols;
applying a self-adaptive nonlinearity function, which models a
nonlinearity introduced into said composite signal by said transmission
channel, to said continuous time waveform;
subtracting a result of said nonlinearity function from said composite
signal to generate a result E; and
demodulating and decoding said result E by using a second
demodulation and decoding chain in order to regenerate second information
of said second signal LL, wherein said self-adaptive nonlinearity function
uses an adaptive process based on a calculation which minimizes a
correlation between said result E and said continuous time waveform,
wherein said correlation is calculated according to said result E multiplied
by z*, wherein z* is a conjugated complex number of said z.

Prior Art
Stonick U.S. 5,900,778 May 4, 1999
Nagatani U.S. 6,836,517 B2 Dec. 28, 2004
Bauder U.S. 6,853,246 B2 Feb. 8, 2005

Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471

3
Chen ʼ473 U.S. 7,184,473 B2 Feb. 27, 2007
Chen ʼ671 U.S. 7,245,671 B1 July 17, 2007

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-17, 20-23, 25, 26, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen ’473 and
Nagatani.
Claims 3, 19, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen ’473, Nagatani, and Stonick.
Claims 4, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’473, Nagatani, and Bauder.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’473, Nagatani, and Chen ’671.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chen ’473 and Nagatani.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “recoding a set of symbols of complex number form z
= x + jy representative of said constellation used for transmission and …
applying a self-adaptive nonlinearity function … wherein said self-adaptive
nonlinearity function uses an adaptive process based on a calculation which
minimizes a correlation between said result E and said continuous time
waveform, wherein said correlation is calculated according to said result E
multiplied by z*, wherein z* is a conjugated complex number of said z.”
The Examiner finds that Nagatani teaches a complex conjugate signal u*(t)
used to compensate for distortion. Ans. 6, 17-18. Appellant contends that
u(t) is not “a set of symbols of complex number form z = x + jy
Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471

4
representative of said constellation used for transmission.” Reply Br. 4.
Rather, Appellant contends that u(t) is a product of a transmission signal x(t)
and a distortion function f(p), and thus u*(t) does not teach or suggest z* as
claimed. Id.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not provided persuasive
evidence or explanation to show how u(t) teaches a set of symbols
representative of a constellation used for transmission, or that u*(t) teaches
the complex conjugate of such symbols. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has not established that the combination of Chen ’473 and
Nagatani teaches “said correlation is calculated according to said result E
multiplied by z*, wherein z* is a conjugated complex number of” a set of
symbols of complex constellation form representative of a constellation used
for transmission.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 10, 14, 20, and 25 contain a limitation similar to that of
claim 1 for which the rejection fails.

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.

REVERSED

kis
Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471

5
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge
I join with the majority in reversing the rejection, but write separately
to highlight with more specificity what I see as the reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner relies on Chen ’473 to teach or suggest
“a set of symbols of complex form z = x + jy representative of said
constellation used for transmission.” Ans. 4 (citing Chen ’473, Figs. 10A–
B, 21, and col. 11, ll. 20–25); see also Chen ’473, col. 9, ll. 51–64 and Figs.
6A–C. However, the Examiner also finds that Chen ’473 “does not
explicitly disclose correlation is calculated according to said result E
multiplied by z*,” the conjugated complex number of z. Ans. 5. Instead, the
Examiner relies on Nagatani’s use of u*(t), the conjugate complex of u(t), to
teach or suggest a correlation calculated according to result E multiplied by
z*. Id. at 5–6.
The Examiner’s findings do not show that Nagatani cures the
acknowledged deficiency of Chen ’473. In particular, the Examiner’s
original findings and response do not “address Appellant’s arguments that
the complex number which is conjugated in Nagatani is not a complex
number representative of a constellation of symbols used for transmission.”
Reply Br. 4 (italicized emphasis added); see also App. Br. 20–21. Appellant
correctly notes that the u(t) is a product of a transmission signal and a
distortion function that “is equal to a product of a compensation coefficient
and a feedback signal.” App. Br. 21; see also Nagatani, col. 3, ll. 38–55
(“u(t)=x(t)f(p)=h*n(p)y(t)”) and Figs. 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20–22, and 27
(consistently illustrating that u*(t) is based on the complex conjugate of
feedback signal y(t)). Thus, Nagatani’s u*(t) is based on data representing a
Appeal 2011-001395
Application 10/845,471

6
signal that has been transmitted (i.e., a feedback signal), not on data
representing a signal used for transmission.
Based on the record before this panel, Chen ’473 teaches or suggests a
set of symbols of complex form z = x + jy representative of said
constellation used for transmission while Nagatani teaches or suggests a
calculation based on the complex conjugate of a feedback signal. The
Examiner, however, does not provide sufficient findings or explanation to
show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
perform Nagatani’s calculation based on the complex conjugate, not of
Nagatani’s feedback signal, but of the signal for transmission found in Chen
’473. Therefore, I agree with Appellant, App. Br. 20, that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Chen ’473 and Nagatani teaches or
suggests “wherein said correlation is calculated according to said result E
multiplied by z*, wherein z* is a conjugated complex number of said z,” a
set of symbols of complex number form representative of a constellation
used for transmission, as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, I agree with the majority that the Examiner does not
provide persuasive evidence showing that claim 1 is unpatentable over Chen
’473 and Nagatani. The Examiner rejects independent claims 10, 14, 20,
and 25 along with claim 1 without distinction, Ans. 4–6, and the Examiner
does not show that other cited art cures the noted deficiency in the
combination of Chen ’473 and Nagatani, Ans. 9–13. Therefore, I join with
the majority in reversing the rejections of claims 1–28.