12537591 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

Ex Parte Stirling-Gallacher et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2013

12537591 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013)

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. 12/537,591 08/07/2009 Richard Stirling-Gallacher 450117-4865.4 5688 20999 7590 05/30/2013 FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG 745 FIFTH AVENUE- 10TH FL. NEW YORK, NY 10151 EXAMINER ROBERTS, BRIAN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD STIRLING-GALLACHER and JENS-UWE JURGENSEN ____________ Appeal 2013-002420 Application 12/537,591 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request rehearing of the January 29, 2013, Decision on Appeal (“Decision”), wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 15, 16, 18- 24, and 26-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bottomley. We have reconsidered the Decision in light of Appellants’ arguments but, for the reasons given below, we are not persuaded of any error therein. Appeal 2013-002420 Application 12/537,591 2 Appellants argue that our decision misinterpreted the disclosure of Bottomley because “Bottomley describes using the same mask [sic] scramble mask for both source information signals, whereas claim 15 claims using different scramble codes” (Req. Reh’g 1). Appellants further argue that “even if Bottomley provides different scramble masks for the different source information (col. 13, ll. 55-57), there is no suggestion that each source information is associated with a scrambling code” (id.). These arguments are unpersuasive because, based on the Examiner’s analysis of the prior art teachings (see Ans. 3-4), which we adopted, we agreed with the findings and conclusions made by the Examiner (Decision 4- 5). Specifically, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 3) and explained by this panel (Decision 4), Bottomley discloses using either a common scramble mask (see col. 3, ll. 19-33) or different scramble masks for different source information signals (see col. 13, ll. 55-60). In fact, the Board explicitly adopted as its own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, stated on pages 3-4 of the Answer, which addressed the teachings of Bottomley with respect to scrambling source information signals using different scramble masks associated with those signals (Decision 4). In that regard, we direct attention to the Examiner’s discussion of producing a scramble mask for each spread data symbol based on an associated spreading code (Ans. 4), which were addressed in our decision and will not be repeated here. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellants’ request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny Appellants’ request to make any changes therein. Appeal 2013-002420 Application 12/537,591 3 DECISION The request for rehearing is denied. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REHEARING DENIED ELD