Ex Parte Pisek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

11317268 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111317,268
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
12/23/2005
03/21/2016
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eran Pisek
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.
2005.10.0llWTO
(37520.20)
CONFIRMATION NO.
2841
EXAMINER
LUGO,DAVIDB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERAN PISEK and THOMAS HENIGE
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN G. NEW, and CARLL. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-13 and 15-21. Claim 14 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary independent claims 1 and 17 under appeal, with emphases
added, read as follows:
1. A decoder comprising:
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
a demodulator configured to receive a plurality of
encoded data bits and generate a demodulated output;
a channel decoder coupled to the demodulator and
configured to receive the demodulated output and generate
decoded data bits as hard outputs;
an encoder coupled to the channel decoder and
configured to receive the decoded data bits and re-encode the
decoded data bits and generate re-encoded data bits; and
a comparator coupled to the demodulator and the
encoder and configured to compare the demodulated output
and the re-encoded data bits and generate an error rate based
on the comparison;
wherein the error rate from the comparator is used to
modifY an operating parameter of the channel decoder.
17. A wireless device comprising a plurality of context-
based reconfigurable processors, at least one of the context-
based reconfigurable processors comprising:
a demodulator configured to receive a plurality of
encoded data bits and generate a demodulated output;
a channel decoder coupled to the demodulator and
configured to receive the demodulated output and generate
decoded data bits as hard outputs;
an encoder coupled to the channel decoder and
configured to receive the decoded data bits and re-encode the
decoded data bits and generate re-encoded data bits; and
a comparator coupled to the demodulator and the
encoder and configured to compare the demodulated output
and the re-encoded data bits and generate an error rate based
on the comparison;
wherein a learning period of the channel decoder is
reduced based on the error rate.
2
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
The Examiner's Rejections
( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-13 and 21 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg (US 2005/0180344 Al; published
Aug. 18, 2005), Walker (US 2005/0123076 Al; published June 9, 2005),
Mills (US 6,981,203 B2; issued Dec. 27, 2005), and Xu (US 6,829 ,313 B 1;
issued Dec. 7, 2004). Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2-6. 1
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 17 and 20 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu, and Chun (US
7,536,630 B2; May 19, 2009).2 Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 7.
(3) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker, Mills,
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-13 (see App. Br. 20 where
Appellants rely on the arguments made as to claim l as to the patentability
of claims 2-13), and Appellants present arguments primarily to independent
claim 1 and dependent claim 21 (see App. Br. 15-20; Reply Br. 2---6).
Independent claims 1, 8, and 11 each recite similar features relating to using
an error rate to modify an operating parameter of a channel decoder.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for the group of claims 1-
13 rejected over the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu, and
our analysis will primarily address claims 1 and 21.
2 Appellants fail to present any separate arguments with regard to the
rejection of dependent claim 20 under§ 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker,
Mills, Xu, and Chun (see App. Br. 25 where Appellants rely on the
arguments made as to claim 17 as to the patentability of claim 20). See App.
Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 8). Claim 20 depends directly from independent claim
17 and includes the same features as its parent claim. Accordingly, we
select claim 17 as representative for the group of claims 17 and 20 rejected
over the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu, and Chun, and our
analysis will only address claim 17.
3
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
Xu, Chun, and Huppenthal (US 7,197,575 B2; issued Mar. 27, 2007). 3 Final
Act. 7-8; Ans. 7.
Principal Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13-28)
and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-9), the following principal issues are
presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 as being obvious
over the base combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu because the
combination fails to teach or suggest using an error rate from a comparator
to modify an operating parameter of a channel decoder, as recited in
representative and independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in claims 2-
13 grouped therewith?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting dependent claim 21 as being
obvious over the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu because
the base combination fails to teach or suggest generating decoded data bits
based on both hard and soft inputs of a demodulated output, as recited in
claim 21?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 17 and 20 as being
obvious over Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu, and Chun because the base
combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu fails to teach or suggest
reducing a learning parameter of a channel decoder using an error rate from
3 With respect to dependent claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented as to independent claims 11 and 17 from which claims
15, 16, 18, and 19 respectively depend, in addition to asserting that neither
Chun nor Ruppenthal cure the deficiencies of the base combination of
Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu (see App. Br. 26).
4
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
a comparator, as recited in representative and independent claim 17, and as
similarly recited in claim 20 grouped therewith?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 as
being obvious over the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu, Chun,
and Ruppenthal because the base combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills,
and Xu fails to teach or suggest (i) using an error rate from a comparator to
modify an operating parameter of a channel decoder as recited in
independent claim 11 from which claims 15 and 16 depend; and (ii)
reducing a learning parameter of a channel decoder using an error rate from
a comparator as recited in independent claim 1 7 from which claims 18 and
19 depend? This fourth issue stands or falls with the outcomes of the first
and third issues with respect to claims 11 and 17, respectively.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-8) in light
of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13-28) and the
Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-9) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the
Examiner's response to the arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-7). We
disagree with Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which
this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-8), as well as the Advisory Action (see
Advisory Act. mailed January 9, 2013, 2), and (2) the reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-7) in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
5
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
Claims 1-13
With regard to representative claim 1, we agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 3--4) that Xu teaches using a quality index to modify an operating
parameter of decoder. Appellants admit (App. Br. 24--25) that Sternberg
teaches calculating a bit error rate (BER) to estimate channel quality. And,
Sternberg discloses that "[t]he BER is preferably calculated using the
structure of the Viterbi decoder 305" (i-f 26), and that "BER or an
accumulated soft metric are used just as an example of an indicator of a
channel quality, and any other parameter that can indicate the degree of
correct receipt of a transmitted data without error may be utilized instead of
a BER or an accumulated soft metric" (i-f 21) (emphases added). Xu
discloses a Viterbi decoder with a quality index for adjusting a learning
period (Xu col. 1, 1. 22; col. 13, 11. 24--25). In light of our agreement with
the Examiner's stated motivation to combine Xu with Sternberg being Xu's
disclosure of adjusting a learning period in a decoder in order to reduce
computations and power consumption (Xu col. 2, 11. 47-53; 13, 11. 18-21),
we find Appellants' arguments that the combination of Sternberg, Walker,
Mills, and Xu fails to disclose or suggest using the error rate from a
comparator to modify an operating parameter of the channel decoder
unpersuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 1, as well as claims 2-13 grouped therewith, as being obvious over the
combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu.
Claim 21
Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 6-8) that nothing
in the cited references, taken individually, discloses or suggests using two
6
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
different types of values (hard and soft) of a demodulated output in a
decoding scheme are unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner (Final Act.
5; Ans. 5---6) that the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu
teaches or suggests this feature inasmuch as it is recited by the actual
language of claim 21 (reciting that decoded data bits are generated "based on
both the soft-input and the hard-input of the demodulated output").
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5) that using either a soft
input or a hard input would have been obvious and would be based on a
trade-off between decoder complexity and performance as disclosed by
Walker (citing Mills col. 10, 11. 22-27). The combination teaches or
suggests decoding based on both hard and soft inputs, because, inter alia, (i)
Walker discloses a Viterbi decoder that receives input in the form of soft
data (Final Act. 5; Ans. 6 citing Walker i-f 28), (ii) Sternberg (Fig. 4;
i-f 21) and Xu (col. 1, 1. 6) both disclose soft-output Viterbi decoders, (iii)
Sternberg discloses using hard inputs (Final Act. 5 citing Sternberg Fig. 4,
hard decision unit 425), (iv) Mills discloses decoding soft data (Ans. 6 citing
Mills col. 5, 11. 16-19), and (v) Sternberg suggests using both hard and soft
metrics in a decoder (Fig. 4; i-f 27).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5---6) that (i) Appellants' Figure 2
is analogous to Sternberg's Figure 4, (ii) Mills (Ans. 5 citing Mills col. 10,
11. 11-25) discloses that hard data may be considered a special restricted case
of soft data, and (iii) Mills disclosing soft inputs to produce soft outputs
(Ans. 5---6 citing Mills col. 5, 11. 16-19). Notably, Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner's findings relating to Mills (see Reply Br. 6-8).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 21 as being
obvious over the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu.
7
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
Claims 17 and 20
With regard to representative claim 17, Appellants' arguments (App.
Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 8) that the combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills,
and Xu, and particularly Xu, fails to teach or suggest reducing a learning
parameter of a channel decoder using an error rate from a comparator is
unpersuasive in light of (i) Xu's disclosure of adjusting a learning period in a
decoder in order to reduce computations and power consumption (Xu col. 2,
11. 47-53, 13, 11. 18-21), (ii) Sternberg's disclosure of calculating an error
rate from a comparator, and (iii) the fact that both Sternberg and Xu being
drawn to Viterbi decoders (Sternberg i-fi-126, 27; Xu col. 1, 1. 22, col. 13, 11.
24--25).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 17 (as well as claim 20 grouped therewith) as being obvious over the
combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu, and Chun.
Claims 15, 16, 18, and 19
Because the Examiner did not err in determining that the base
combination of Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and Xu teaches or suggests (i)
using an error rate from a comparator to modify an operating parameter of a
channel decoder as recited in independent claim 11; and (ii) reducing a
learning parameter of a channel decoder using an error rate from a
comparator as recited in independent claim 17, we sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 over the combination of Sternberg,
Walker, Mills, Xu, Chun, and Ruppenthal for the reasons already provided
as to claims 11 and 17.4
4 See supra issue statement four and footnote 3.
8
Appeal2013-010920
Application 11/317 ,268
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13 and 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker, Mills, and
Xu.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 17 and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker, Mills, Xu,
and Chun.
(3) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sternberg, Walker, Mills,
Xu, Chun, and Ruppenthal.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-13 and 15-21 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9