Ex Parte Sharma

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2012

09800397 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/800,397 03/05/2001 Alok Sharma 0023-0135 2689
44987 7590 08/24/2012
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
EXAMINER
ZHONG, JUN FEI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ALOK SHARMA
____________________

Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JOHN G.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1, 3-10, 12-17, and 22-40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 2, 11, and 18-21 have been canceled.
We AFFIRM.
INTRODUCTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to an architecture that
digitizes an upstream spectrum and buses a digitized result to inputs of
multiple digital receivers. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for provisioning multiple digital receivers,
comprising:

providing an analog to digital converter having an analog
input and a digital output;

providing a plurality of digital receivers, each receiver
having a programmable center frequency,

where the plurality of digital receivers are to receive
digitized samples from the analog to digital converter and
where each of the plurality of digital receivers includes a low-
pass digital filter;

maintaining pre-computed sets of filter coefficients in
non-volatile storage, each set corresponding to one of the
plurality of low-pass digital filters, each filter having one of a
predetermined set of bandwidths;
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

3

receiving a request to provision a selected one of the
plurality of digital receivers;

selecting a first center frequency and a first bandpass
bandwidth for provisioning the selected one of the plurality of
digital receivers;

retrieving the filter coefficients associated with the first
bandpass bandwidth;

subjecting the retrieved filter coefficients to a bandpass
transformation corresponding to the first center frequency; and

loading the transformed filter coefficients into coefficient
latches in the selected one of the plurality of digital receivers.

References
Peyrovian US 5,768,682 Jun. 16, 1998
Yasuda US 6,466,913 B1 Oct. 15, 2002
(filed Jun. 29, 1999)
Quigley US 6,650,624 B1 Nov. 18, 2003
(filed May 19, 2000)
Barham US 6,721,371 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
(filed Jan. 5, 2000)
Dunlop US 6,721,872B1 Apr. 13, 2004
(filed Jan. 18, 2000)
Proakis and Manolakis, “Digital Signal Processing: Principles, Algorithms,
and Application”, Prentice-Hall, Inc. (1996), pages 698-700 (“Proakis”)
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, Figure 17(A) (“AAPA”)
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

4
Rejections
A. Claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 22-26, and 37-40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis.
B. Claims 8 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Dunlop.
C. Claims 5-7, 13, 27-29, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Quigley.
D. Claims 14, 15, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and Peyrovian.
E. Claims 9, 10, 12, and 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and
Appellant's Fig. 17(A).
GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 22-26,
and 37-40. (See App. Br.10-16).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 8
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 8 and 36. (See App.
Br. 17-20).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 5
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 5, 6, 13, 27, 28, and
33. (See App. Br. 20 and 23).
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 7
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 7 and 29. (See App.
Br. 21-25).
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

5
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we address the rejection of claims
9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 30-32, 34, and 35 as a group. (See App. Br. 26-28).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 22-26, and 37-40
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barham, Yasuda,
and Proakis because the references do not teach or suggest “retrieving filter
coefficients associated with a first bandpass bandwidth” (App. Br. 11 and
14) (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant contends Yasuda does not
teach or suggest the filter coefficient of the FIR filter are, or could be,
associated with a bandpass bandwidth (id.). According to Appellant, Yasuda
does not teach or suggest a bandpass bandwidth at all (id.).
Further, Appellant contends Proakis does not teach or suggest
“subjecting the retrieved filter coefficients…to a bandpass transformation
corresponding to a first center frequency” (App. Br. 12 and 15) (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant further argues the Examiner has not articulated reasoning
with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,
but instead set forth a conclusory statement of an alleged benefit (id.).

Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

6
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in:
(i) finding the combination of Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis would
have taught or suggested (a) retrieving filter coefficients
associated with a first bandpass bandwidth and (b) subjecting
the retrieved filter coefficients to a bandpass transformation
corresponding to a first center frequency as recited in claim 1;
and
(ii) improperly combining the teachings and suggestions of
Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner. Yasuda teaches storing filter
coefficients in the memory (Ans. 19). Yasuda also teaches the CPU
retrieving the set of coefficients to transmit from the coefficient buffer to the
FIR filter (id.). Further, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
finding that although Yasuda does not use “bandpass bandwidth,” skilled
artisans would recognize each filter has a unique characteristic represented
by center frequency, pass through frequency range (bandpass bandwidth),
and impulse response. (See Ans. 6 and 19). Thus, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings that the combination of
references teaches or at least suggests “retrieving the filter coefficients
associated with the first bandpass bandwidth” as recited in claim 1 and
commensurately recited in claim 24.
Appellant argues since the references do not teach or suggest
retrieving filter coefficients associated with a first bandpass bandwidth, the
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

7
references do not teach or suggest “subjecting the retrieved filter
coefficients…to a bandpass transformation corresponding to a first center
frequency” (App. Br. 12) (emphasis omitted). However, although the
Examiner has set forth specifics of why Yasuda teaches or suggests this
function (Ans. 6 and 20), Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings (see App. Br.
12).
Appellant further argues the Examiner’s allegation of the benefit of
the combination of teachings is “merely a conclusory statement of an alleged
benefit of the combination” (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5-6); however,
we disagree. The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to combine the teachings of Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis (Ans. 6-7
and 20-21). Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s conclusion.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis would have taught or suggested the invention
as recited in independent claim 1; commensurately recited in independent
claim 24; and dependent claims 3, 4, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 37-40, not
separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
3, 4, 16, 17, 22-26, and 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Barham, Yasuda, and Proakis.

Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

8
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 8 and 36
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barham, Yasuda,
Proakis, and Dunlop because the references do not teach or suggest “an
analog to digital converter, a plurality of digital receivers, and a non-volatile
storage are implemented on a single integrated circuit” (App. Br. 17)
(emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant contends Dunlop, on which the
Examiner relies, teaches a reconfigurable network interface card that
includes an FPGA and a programmable processor – but not all the recited
elements – embodied on a single integrated device (App. Br. 17-18).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Dunlop would have taught or suggested “the
analog to digital converter, the plurality of digital receivers, and the non-
volatile storage are implemented on a single integrated circuit” as recited in
claim 8?

ANALYSIS
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position.
The Examiner’s relies on Dunlop, col. 3, line 50 through col. 4, line 38 and
col. 8, lines 27-39 as teaching or suggesting multiple elements on a single
integrated circuit. The elements include a radio transceiver and an antenna
(col. 4, ll. 19-21) suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art
communication and processing elements are on a single integrated circuit.
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

9
Further, Dunlop teaches memory may be included in the Network Interface
Card (col. 3, ll. 50-64 and col. 8, ll. 27-39). Thus, Dunlop teaches or at least
suggests a single integrated circuit with communication, storage, and
processing elements. We further agree with the Examiner that Barham,
Yasuda, and Proakis teach or suggest the recited communication, storage,
and processing elements (the analog to digital converter, the plurality of
digital receivers, and the non-volatile storage) (Ans. 10-11 and 24-25).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to implement the analog to digital converter,
the plurality of digital receivers, and the non-volatile storage on a single
integrated circuit in light of the teachings of the references.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Dunlop would have taught or suggested the
invention as recited in claims 8 and 36, not separately argued. Therefore,
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8 and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and
Dunlop.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 5, 6, 13, 27, 28, and 33
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious due to the dependence
from independent claims 1 and 24, respectively (App. Br. 20 and 23). Since
we find no error in the Examiner’s findings that the combination of Barham,
Yasuda, and Proakis would have taught or suggested the invention as recited
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

10
in claims 1 and 24, it follows that claims 5, 6, 13, 27, 28, and 33 fall with
their respective independent claims.

ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 7 and 29
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Barham, Yasuda,
Proakis, and Quigley because none of the references teach or suggest “the
ratio of the number of upstream channels demodulated by a CMTS channel
bank to a number of upstream input connectors of the CMTS channel bank is
M, where M is 16” (App. Br. 21(emphasis omitted)). Appellant disagrees
with the Examiner’s determination that setting M to 16 is a design choice
(id.).
Appellant also contends the Examiner has not articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness (App. Br. 22).

Issue 4: Has the Examiner erred in determining “where M is 16,” as
recited in claim 7, is a design choice and has the Examiner improperly
combined the references?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the limitation
“where M is 16” is not merely a design choice (see App. Br. 21-22).
Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us
that “where M is 16” yields an unexpected result or was beyond the skill of
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

11
one having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that implementing M to be 16 is a design choice (see Ans. 27).
We further disagree with Appellant that the Examiner has not
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. Indeed, the
Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning in the
Answer at pages 12, 13, 27 and 28. Appellant has not presented sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
conclusions that the present invention as recited in claim 7 and
commensurately recited in claim 29 would have been obvious over the
combination of Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Quigley. Therefore, the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for obviousness over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Quigley.

ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 14, 15, 34, and 35 and claims
9, 10, 12, and 30-32

ANALYSIS
For each of the rejections, Appellant asserts the invention is not
obvious because the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight in piecing
together no less than five references to arrive at Appellant’s claims (App. Br.
26-28). However, Appellant does not present sufficient evidence or
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

12
argument to persuade us the Examiner used impermissible hindsight.
Specifically, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning for the combinations, but Appellant has offered only the
conclusory statement that combining five references uses impermissible
hindsight without further explanation.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of (i) Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and Peyrovian and (ii)
Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and AAPA would have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in claims 14, 15, 34, and 35 and claims 9,
10, 12, and 30-32, respectively. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 14, 15, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and Peyrovian and
claims 9, 10, 12, and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and AAPA.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 16, 17, 22-26, and 37-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, and
Proakis is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, and Dunlop is
affirmed.
Appeal 2011-006403
Application 09/800,397

13
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 13, 27-29, and 33 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis,
Quigley is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis, Quigley, and
Peyrovian is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, and 30-32 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barham, Yasuda, Proakis,
Quigley, and AAPA is 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)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj