KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 21, 2020

15369970 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2020)

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.
15/369,970 12/06/2016 DONG WANG 2008P00549US02 6015
24737 7590 02/21/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
TIEU, JANICE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONG WANG, JUN YANG, and DAGNACHEW BIRRU
____________________

Appeal 2019-001334
Application 15/369,970
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant0F1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Koninklijke Philips N.V. is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001334
Application 15/369,970

2
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a multi-band communication
system including a plurality of transmit channels, where each transmit
channel transmits data streams through a single sub-band, and a plurality of
receive channels, where each receive channel receives data streams of a
single sub-band. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
is reproduced below.
1. A multi-band Ultra-wideband (UWB) communication
system, comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit input information
bits, split into streams, using a plurality of transmit channels in
parallel through a single sub-band in each transmit channel,
wherein each sub-band in each transmit channel is set with a
different channel code and a different modulation symbol,
wherein each sub-band is a UWB sub-channel; and
a receiver configured to receive the streams on the single
sub-band using a plurality of receive channels in parallel,
wherein the streams received on the single sub-band are
decoded using a channel code and a modulation symbol
associated with the single sub-band.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS1F2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Foerster (US 2004/0047285 A1; published Mar. 11,
2004) and Birru (US 2006/0153279 A1, published July 13, 2006). Final
Act. 3–6.
The Examiner rejected claims 4 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 27,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed November 26, 2018 (Reply Br.);
Final Office Action mailed November 2, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 24, 2018 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-001334
Application 15/369,970

3
being unpatentable over Foerster, Birru, and Ketchum (US 2003/0048856
A1, Mar. 13, 2003). Final Act. 6–7.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Foerster, Birru, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Final
Act. 7–8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1 over the combination of Foerster, and Birru
on pages 8 through 15 of the Appeal Brief. The dispositive issue presented
in these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Foerster, and Birru teaches each sub-band in each transmit channel is set
with a different channel code and a different modulation symbol.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Examiner erroneously equates Birru’s
amplitude and phase modulations of each sub-band with the claimed channel
code and different modulation symbol. Appeal Br. 12. Further, Appellant
argues even if the Examiner is correct in equating the amplitude and phase
modulations with the claims channel code and modulation symbol, Birru
teaches that these parameters are changed based upon channel conditions
and not set such that each sub-band has a different channel code and
modulation symbol. Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner responds by finding that Birru teaches adapting the
modulation scheme of each sub-band based upon channel conditions.
Appeal 2019-001334
Application 15/369,970

4
Answer 4 (citing Birru ¶¶7 and 17). Further, the Examiner states:
Although Birru does not explicitly recites different channel
code and different modulation symbol, it would be well known
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to recognize that different modulation scheme would
obviously include different channel code rate and different
modulation symbols. For example, such QPSK modulation
scheme and 16QAM modulation scheme would obviously have
different channel code rate and different modulation symbols.
Answer 4.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. We have reviewed the teachings of Birru, and concur that Birru
teaches adjusting transmission parameters based upon channel conditions.
Further, we note, Birru does teach that different channels may use different
symbols, see, e.g., paragraphs 30 and 31. However, we do not find that
Birru teaches that each channel is set to use different symbols and channel
codes as claimed. Further, in as much as the Examiner’s rejection is
asserting that it would be obvious to modify Birru’s teaching of setting the
parameters based upon channel conditions to instead setting each channel
with different parameters. The Examiner has cited insufficient evidence and
reasoning as to why such a modification would be obvious. For example,
the Examiner’s finding that QPSK modulation and 16QAM modulation
schemes have different channel code rates and modulation symbols, or in
other words it’s obvious to have different channel code rates and modulation
symbols, does not demonstrate it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to set each transmit channel with different channel codes and
symbols. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 3 under over the combination of Foerster and
Appeal 2019-001334
Application 15/369,970

5
Birru.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 through
7, similarly rely upon the teachings of Foerster and Birru, to teach the
limitations of the independent claim 1. The Examiner has not shown that the
additional teachings of Ketchum or the Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art make
up for the deficiency’s discussed above with the rejection of independent
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain he Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 4 through 7 for the same reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3 103 Foerster , Birru 1–3
4–6 103 Foerster, Birru,
Ketchum
4–6
7 103 Foerster, Birru, AAPA 7
Overall
Outcome
1–7

REVERSED