Ex Parte Wang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10289699 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 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.
10/289,699 11/07/2002 Xiao-an Wang 19 1047
7590 01/31/2012
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
Suite 205
1300 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06430
EXAMINER
DSOUZA, JOSEPH FRANCIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2012 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 XIAO-AN WANG
____________

Appeal 2009-012351
Application 10/289,699
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-012351
Application 10/289,699

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a method and apparatus for detecting
a pilot signal in a wireless receiver using a coherent combing technique and
a noncoherent detection technique once a receiver is substantially frequency
locked (Spec. 2:24-27).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method for detecting a pilot signal in a wireless receiver,
said method comprising the steps of:

frequency locking said receiver to an incoming data
signal; and

detecting said pilot signal using a coherent combining
technique and a noncoherent detection technique once said
receiver is substantially frequency locked.

REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18-21, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lomp (US 5,799,010)
and Brown (WO 98/18202).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, 17, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lomp, Brown, and Murai (US
5,787,112).
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Lomp, Brown, and Chung (US 6,005,889)

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Lomp discloses all the features of Appellant’s
claim 1 except Lomp does not disclose a noncoherent detection technique.
Appeal 2009-012351
Application 10/289,699

3
However, the Examiner asserts Brown discloses a noncoherent detection
technique and therefore it would be obvious to use the method of Brown in
the system of Lomp, allowing a noncoherent detection technique when a
channel is “not good.” (Ans. 4, 13)
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20 together, and
contends neither Lomp nor Brown discloses combining the coherent
technique of Lomp and the noncoherent technique of Brown.
1
Further,
Appellant contends, “neither Lomp nor Brown, alone or in combination,
disclose or suggest a process that includes both coherent combining and
noncoherent detection” once a receiver is substantially frequency locked, as
claimed. (App. Br. 4)
2

The Examiner counters Lomp discloses coherently combining after a
frequency is locked and obtaining channel estimates (Ans. 12). The
Examiner further finds these channel estimates are used in the channel
response correction circuit that “acts like a Rake combiner by adding all
multipath pilot signal power” (Ans. 12). The Examiner additionally asserts
Brown discloses using coherent detection when these channel estimates are
good and noncoherent detection when channel estimates are poor. (Ans. 12)
Thus, the Examiner finds, using different detection techniques as taught by
Brown in Lomp’s system “would allow noncoherent detection to be used in
Lomp’s system, when the channel is not good.” (Ans. 13)

1
Appellant groups claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20 together (App. Br. 3) but does
not include claim 11 in the argument (App. Br. 4-5). However, since claim
11 is rejected over Lomp and Brown for the same reasons as claims 1, 6, 15,
and 20, claim 11 is assumed to be included in Appellant’s argument.

2
The Amended Appeal Brief filed August 23, 2007, is referenced
throughout this Opinion.
Appeal 2009-012351
Application 10/289,699

4
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. Specifically, Appellant has failed to present substantive
arguments supported with specific factual evidence of sufficient character
and weight to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s legal conclusion
of obviousness for these claims. Further, Appellant argues the references
individually contending “there is no suggestion in Lomp or Brown of a
process that includes both coherent combining and noncoherent detection”
(App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 3). However, the Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of Lomp and Brown and what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art (Ans. 4; 12-13). One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we find independent claims 1, 6, 11, 15, and 20, and
dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 18, 19, 21, and 23 not
separately argued (App. Br. 6), obvious over Lomp and Brown.
With respect to claims 3, 8, 17, and 22, Appellant has recited what
the Examiner has indicated Murai discloses and asserted Murai does not
disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 4-5). Moreover, the
Examiner has set forth detailed findings as to the disclosure of the disputed
limitation in Murai to which Appellant did not respond (Ans. 13-14).
Therefore, Appellant has failed to present substantive arguments and
supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error. Arguments not made are
waived. Thus, we find claims 3, 8, 17, and 22 obvious over the cited
references.

Appeal 2009-012351
Application 10/289,699

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 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

kis