Ex Parte Vontobel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2014

11831716 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte PASCAL OLIVIER VONTOBEL and SHIRIN JALALI
____________

Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a decoder operable to decode
data transmitted on a noisy communication channel (Spec. ¶ 5).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows:
1. A method of decoding codes representing data
received in a communication system, the method comprising:
receiving encoded data representing a codeword
transmitted on a communication channel in the communication
system;
determining a linear program (LP) for decoding the
received data, wherein the linear program includes a cost
function associated with a probability that a particular word is
received when a particular codeword was sent over the
communication channel;
calculating a solution to the LP using a coordinate-ascent
method that varies multiple variables associated with the cost
function in one iteration; and
estimating a transmitted codeword from the received
encoded data using the solution to the LP.
Rejections
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Candes (US 2007/0016837 A1; published Jan. 18, 2007)
and Pascal O. Vontobel & Ralf Koetter, Towards Low-Complexity
Linear-Programming Decoding, PROC. 4TH INT’L SYMPOSIUM ON TURBO
CODES AND RELATED TOPICS, Munich, Germany, Apr. 3–7, 2006
(“Vontobel”) (Ans. 5).

Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6, 9–16, 19, and 20
Appellants contend that “although Vontobel does disclose a linear
program that includes a cost function, Vontobel fails to teach or suggest that
a cost function ‘associated with a probability that a particular word is
received when a particular codeword was sent over the communication
channel,’ as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 10.)
We disagree. Appellants cite paragraph 80 of the Specification in
support of the “determining” step of claim 1 that recites the “linear program”
language at issue (see App. Br. 4). As found by the Examiner (Ans. 9),
Paragraph 80 recites a linear program (LP) that “includes a cost function
associated with a probability that a particular word was received given that
the particular codeword was sent over the communication channel.”
Paragraph 80 further states that “[t]he LP is formulated as a dual LP shown
in Equation 8.” Equation 8 appears at paragraphs 58–62 of the
Specification, as well as in Vontobel, where it is referred to as “the dual
linear program [14] of DLPD2” (see Vontobel § 3). In other words, the very
example of a “linear program [that] includes a cost function associated with
a probability that a particular word is received when a particular codeword
was sent over the communication channel” recited in Appellants’
Specification is taught by Vontobel. Vontobel, therefore, clearly teaches
that claim element.
Further, in “briefly remark[ing] how a codeword decision is obtained
from a solution of DLPD2” (see Vontobel § 6), Vontobel recites the formula
referred to in the Specification as Equation 11 (see Spec. ¶ 76). According
to paragraph 82 of the Specification, to which Appellants cite in support of
Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716

4
the “estimating” step of claim 1 (see App. Br. 4), Equation 11 “describes
converting the solution to an estimation of the transmitted codeword.”
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Vontobel teaches a cost function associated with a probability that a
particular word is received when a particular codeword was sent over the
communication channel, as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also contend that “although Vontobel does disclose in
Section 2 a coordinate-ascent algorithm with multiple variables, Vontobel
fails to teach or suggest that the coordinate-ascent algorithm varies multiple
variables in one iteration, as recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 11.) According
to Appellants:
In the “Response to Arguments” section of the Final
Office Action, the Examiner argues that, in Vontobel, “[f]or
each selected edge, multiple variables have their values
replaced by new values. Therefore, multiple variables have
their values varied.” Final Office Action, page 3.
However, that assertion is incorrect because, in Vontobel,
the values being replaced (or updated) are values of the
components , , and of the selected edge. As such, when
Vontobel describes that, for each selected edge, the old values
, , and are replaced with new values (See Vontobel, for
example, Section 6), the linear program in Vontobel varies the
values of only one edge, i.e., the selected edge, associated with
the cost function. Thus, the linear program in Vontobel varies
only one variable, and not multiple variables, associated with
the cost function in one iteration, as recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 11–12.)
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue that, “in Vontobel, the
values being replaced are not the variables. Instead, the selected edge is the
variable. The values that are being replaced are merely the values of the
Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716

5
selected edge. . . . Thus, in one iteration, the linear program of Vontobel
varies only one variable, i.e., one selected edge.” (Reply Br. 4.)
We again disagree. Despite Appellants’ characterization of , ,
and in its briefing merely as “components . . . of the selected edge,”
Vontobel explicitly refers to and as “variables,” stating, for example,
that “[t]he variables and are then updated accordingly so that we
obtain a new (dual) feasible point” (Vontobel § 6) and that “the and
have to be seen as dual variables that would appear as edges in a more
detailed drawing of the boxes and , respectively” (Vontobel
n.3). And indeed, Appellants themselves repeatedly refer to , as a
“variable” in the Specification. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 67.) Accordingly, we find
no error in the Examiner’s finding that Vontobel teaches that “multiple
variables are varied for each iteration.” (Ans. 10–11.)
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as
the rejection of independent claims 12 and 20 and dependent claims 2–6,
9–11, 13–16, and 19, not argued separately by Appellants.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18
Appellants argue that claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are independently
patentable because “none of the equations in Vontobel include
min
bj∈Bj -vj
' ,bj
j∈Ji
as recited in claims 7 and 17, or min
ai∈Ai -ui
' ,ai
i∈Ij
as
recited in claims 8 and 18.” (App. Br. 13–14.)
As found by the Examiner (see Ans. 12), however, those recited
summation components are taught, for example, in sections 3 and 4 of
Appeal 2012-002193
Application 11/831,716

6
Vontobel. Therefore, we are not convinced of error in the Examiner’s
findings, and we sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lp