Ex Parte Nossen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2012

10229850 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. NOSSEN, STEVE J. NOSSEN, and
RICHARD R. SHIVELY
________________

Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 3-6, and 8-27:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16-18, 21, 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Oishi (US 6,650,689 B1; issued Nov. 18, 2003,
filed May 25, 1999) (Ans. 3-9);
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Oishi in
view of Fukasawa (US 5,442,662; issued Aug. 15, 1995) (Ans. 9);
Claims 5, 10, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Oishi in view of McDonough (US 2003/0002566 A1; published Jan. 2, 2003)
(Ans. 10); and
Claims 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Oishi in view of Stark (US 6,282,181 B1; issued Aug. 28, 2001)
(Ans. 10-11).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A codeword synthesizing system and a correlation system for
use with a spread spectrum communications system. In one
embodiment, the codeword synthesizing system typically associated
with a transmitter includes a base sequence generating subsystem, a
modifier sequence generating subsystem and a concatenating
subsystem. The base sequence generating subsystem is configured to
create base sequences having a length less than a synthesized
codeword. The modifier sequence generating subsystem is configured
to create a modifier sequence, and the concatenating subsystem is
configured to produce the synthesized codeword by multiplying each
of the base sequences by an element of the modifier sequence. In one
embodiment, the correlation system typically associated with a
Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

3
receiver includes a partial correlating subsystem, a memory subsystem
and a combining subsystem. The partial correlating subsystem
correlates base sequences of a synthesized codeword to a template and
derives multiple partially correlated resultants. The memory
subsystem temporarily stores the partially correlated resultants, and
the combining subsystem sums weighted values of the partially
correlated resultants to provide a correlated value of the synthesized
codeword.
(Abstract).

CLAIMS 1, 3-6, 8-10, AND 21-27
Claims 1, 6, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is directed to a codeword
synthesizing system for use with a spread spectrum communications system. The
codeword synthesizing system is “typically associated with a transmitter”
(Abstract). Claim 6 is directed to a method of synthesizing the codeword. Claim
21 is directed to a transceiver that includes a codeword synthesizing system.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A codeword synthesizing system for use with a spread spectrum
communications system, including:
a base sequence generating subsystem configured to create, at a
first clock rate, base sequences of a synthesized codeword having a
length less than said synthesized codeword, said synthesized
codeword employed to encode a data bit to be transmitted via said
spread spectrum communications system;
a modifier sequence generating subsystem configured to create,
at a second clock rate, a modifier sequence having multiple elements;
a concatenating subsystem configured to produce said
synthesized codeword by multiplying repetitions of said base
sequences by a different one of said multiple elements, wherein each
of said repetitions is inverted or not inverted based on said different
one of said multiple elements to produce randomization of said base
sequences within said synthesized codeword.
Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

4
Contentions1
The Examiner interprets Oishi’s pseudo-random number (PN) generator 71e
of Figure 21 as corresponding to the claimed base sequence generating subsystem
that generates the base sequences of a synthesized codeword (Ans. 12). That is,
the Examiner interprets the pseudo-random numbers, which are generated by the
PN generator and outputted to the shift register 71b, as corresponding to the
constituent base sequences. The Examiner interprets Oishi’s signal R(t) of Figure
21 as corresponding to the synthesized codeword (Ans. 13).
Appellants assert, inter alia,
[t]he Examiner also fails to show Oishi discloses producing the
synthesized codeword by multiplying repetitions of base sequences by
a different one of multiple elements of a modifier sequence as recited
in independent Claims 1 and 6. Instead, Oishi discloses a reference
spreading code sequence c(t) that is a pseudorandom number
sequence but does not have repetitions of a base sequence. (See
column 1, lines 66-67.)
The Examiner asserts R(t) of Oishi is a synthesized codeword
and c(t) is a base sequence of the synthesized codeword having a
length less than the synthesized codeword. (See Examiner's second
Final Rejection, pages 2-3, relying on the output of C1-CN in Figure
21.) c(t), however, is the PN sequence (reference spreading code
sequence) and R(t) is a correlation value provided as an output of the
matched filter 71 that indicates the start of the PN sequence c(t). (See
column 1, line 61, to column 2, line 4; column 2, lines 40-64; and
Figures 20-21.) Thus, instead of a synthesized codeword as asserted
by the Examiner, R(t) is a correlation value. Additionally, c(t) is not a
base sequence of a synthesized codeword but instead is itself a
complete reference spreading code sequence. Furthermore, even if

1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in their
entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective details: the
Supplemental Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed August 15, 2008; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed November 26, 2008; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
January 23, 2009.
App
App

(App

diagr
inclu
Quad
conv
corre
eal 2009-0
lication 10
R(t) was
sequenc
multiplie
correlati
Final Re
PN sequ
sequenc
independ
. Br. 12-1
Appellan
am showi
des a corr
rature Ph
erter 4 and
lator 7 ou
Figure 19
10345
/229,850
a synthes
e thereof
r with the
on value
jection, p
ence c(t)
e of the
ent Claim
3).
ts’ argum
ng a receiv
elator 7 th
ase Shift K
that recei
tputs a cor
of Oishi d
ized code
but inste
transmitte
R(t) being
ages 2-3.)
do not dis
synthesize
s 1 and 6.
ents are pe
er of a mo
at receives
eying (QP
ves a seco
relation si
epicts a m
5
word, the
ad, as no
d data a(t)
the prod
Thus, the
close a sy
d codewo

Analysis
rsuasive.
bile statio
a first sig
SK) detec
nd, referen
gnal R(t) (
obile statio
PN seque
ted by th
being the
uct. (See
correlatio
nthesized
rd, respec

Oishi stat
n” (col. 7,
nal from th
tor 3 and a
ce code s
col. 2, ll. 7
n receiver
nce c(t) is
e Examin
multiplic
Examine
n value R
codeword
tively, as
es that “[F
ll. 64-65)
e receiver
nalog-to-
equence si
-8).
including
not a bas
er, is th
and and th
r’s secon
(t) and th
and a bas
recited i
igure] 19 i
. This rece
circuit 2
digital (AD
gnal. The
correlator
e
e
e
d
e
e
n
s a
iver
via the
)

7.

App
App

subc
(Oish

syste
comp
Oish
sequ
eal 2009-0
lication 10
Figure 2
omponent
F
The mat
successi
the base
frequenc
storing
multiply
sequenc
71d is fu
PN gen
spreadin
i, col. 2, l
To summ
m’s receiv
aring it to
i that wou
ences that
10345
/229,850
1, upon wh
of the cor
igure 21 o
ched filte
vely shifti
band (the
y. Also i
the refer
ing corres
e and refe
rther inclu
erator 71e
g code seq
l. 40-51).
arize, Ois
er for rece
a referen
ld indicate
are concat
ich the Ex
relator 7 (c
f Oishi dep
r includes
ng the rec
output of
ncluded i
ence spr
ponding b
rence spre
ded for a
for gene
uence).
hi indicate
iving alre
ce code. T
Oishi’s P
enated to
6
aminer re
ol. 2, l. 40
icts the co
an N-chi
eived spr
the A/D co
s an N-ch
eading co
its of the
ading cod
dding the
rating the
s that the
ady genera
he Examin
N generato
form a syn
lies, in tur
).
rrelator’s
p shift re
ead-spectr
nverter in
ip shift re
de sequ
baseband
e sequenc
outputs of
PN sequ
matched f
ted spread
er has no
r 71e gen
thesized c
n depicts t
matched f
gister (s1-s
um data s
FIG. 19)
gister (c1-
ence, N-n
spread-spe
e. An ad
the multip
ence (the
ilter 71 is
ing code
t pointed t
erates repe
odeword w
he matche
ilter.
N) 71a fo
equence o
at the chi
cN) 71b fo
umber o
ctrum dat
der circu
liers and
referenc
provided i
sequences
o any pass
titions of b
herein ea
d filter
r
f
p
r
f
a
it
a
e
n the
and
age of
ase
ch of

Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

7
the repetitions is inverted or not inverted based on the different elements of a
separately clocked modifier sequence.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, of independent claims 6 and 21,
which include similar language, or of claims 3, 8, 9, 22, 26, and 27, which depend
from these claims.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4,
5, 10, and 23-25, the Examiner does not maintain that Fukasawa, McDonough, or
Stark cures the deficiency of the anticipation rejection explained above. For the
reasons discussed above, then, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of these
dependent claims.

CLAIMS 11-20
Claims 11 and 16 are independent. Claim 11 is directed to a correlation
system for use with a spread spectrum communication system. The correlation
system is “typically associated with a receiver” (Abstract). Claim 16 is directed to
a method of correlating the synthesized codeword. Independent claim 11 is
illustrative of these claims:
11. A correlation system for use with a spread spectrum
communications system, comprising:
a partial correlating subsystem configured to correlate base
sequences of a synthesized codeword to a template and derive
multiple partially correlated resultants, wherein said synthesized
codeword includes repetitions of said base sequences that are inverted
or not inverted to produce randomization of said base sequences
within said synthesized codeword, said synthesized codeword
employed to encode a data bit to be transmitted via said spread
spectrum communications system;
Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

8
a memory subsystem configured to temporarily store said
partially correlated resultants; and
a combining subsystem configured to sum weighted values of
said partially correlated resultants to provide a correlated value of said
synthesized codeword.
Analysis
The partial correlating subsystem of independent claim 11 is “configured to
correlate base sequences of a synthesized codeword to a template and derive
multiple partially correlated resultants.” Just as in independent claim 1, claim 11’s
synthesized codewords are formed of concatenated repetitions of base sequences,
with some of the repetitions inverted or not inverted.
The Examiner interprets conventional delay lock loop (DLL) circuit of
Oishi’s Figure 23 as corresponding to the claimed partial correlating subsystem
(Ans. 6). The Examiner also restates that the synthesized codeword, upon which
the claimed partial correlating subsystem acts, reads on the correlation value R(t)
depicted in Figure 21 and discussed above (id.). In responding to the rejections of
claims 11-20, Appellants incorporate their arguments that were made in relation to
independent claim 1 (App. Br. 14).
For the reasons set forth in relation to claim 1, we are persuaded that the
Examiner has failed to demonstrate that correlation value R(t) is composed of
concatenated repetitions of base sequences, with some of the repetitions being
inverted or not inverted. As such, the Examiner has failed to establish that any
circuits that process the generated correlation value R(t) perform their operations in
a manner that correlates such base sequences.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 11. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, of independent claim 16, which
Appeal 2009-010345
Application 10/229,850

9
includes similar language, or of claims 12, 13, 17, and 18, which depend from
these claims.
With respect to the remaining obviousness rejection of dependent claims 14,
15, 19, and 20, the Examiner does not maintain that Stark cures the deficiency of
the anticipation rejection explained above. For the reasons discussed above, then,
we likewise do not sustain the rejection of these dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-6, and 8-27 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc