Ex Parte Agazzi

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10979353 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OSCAR E. AGAZZI ____________ Appeal 2010-006637 Application 10/979,353 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 34-53. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-006637 Application 10/979,353 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to Appellant, the present invention relates generally to a method for decoding data that has been encoded using a trellis code. Spec. 2-3. The method detects whether inputs to a receiver have been permuted and compensates for the permutation in a trellis decoder. Spec. 5. The method may be used, for example, in a Gigabit Ethernet transceiver that receives signals encoded according to the trellis code specified in the IEEE 802.3ab standard (also known as the 1000BASE-T standard). Id. The method compensates for pair swaps in such a receiver, i.e., when two or more wire pairs have been interchanged in the connection between transmitter and receiver. Spec. 5, 9. Claim 34 is illustrative of the invention: 34. A method of operating a receiver operable to receive a plurality of inputs and comprising a trellis decoder operable to decode data received on the plurality of inputs, the method comprising: detecting whether any of the inputs to the receiver have been permuted; and if a permutation is detected, compensating for the permutation in the trellis decoder. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejected claims 34-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kobayashi (US 6,029,264; issued Feb. 22, 2000, filed Apr. 28, 1997). Appeal 2010-006637 Application 10/979,353 3 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Kobayashi fails to teach “detecting whether any of the inputs to the receiver have been permuted; and if a permutation is detected, compensating for the permutation in the trellis decoder”? ANALYSIS Appellant contends that Kobayashi does not detect and compensate for a permutation of inputs, as recited in claim 34. App. Br. 5-7. 1 Appellant argues that in Kobayashi’s system, a transmitter permutes a data stream, and an inverse permutation module in the receiver reverses the permutation of the data stream. App. Br. 6 (citing Kobayashi, col. 6, ll. 2-10, ll. 27-31). According to Appellant, Kobayashi teaches a receiver with only a single input, as shown in Kobayashi’s Figure 7B. Id. Thus, Appellant contends that “the permutation that is compensated for in Kobayashi is not a permutation of a plurality of inputs, but a permutation (scrambling) of data received on [that single] input.” Id. In the Response to Argument section of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner states that the receiver in Kobayashi “receives a plurality of data symbol inputs comprising binary values (column 3, lines 44-55). The plurality of these data symbol inputs will comprise the data stream . . . received by the receiver in figure 7B. The plurality of data symbol inputs are the plurality of inputs recited in claim 34.” Ans. 6-7. The Examiner further indicates that this finding is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Ans. 7. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Amended Brief on Appeal dated October 29, 2009. Appeal 2010-006637 Application 10/979,353 4 We agree with Appellant. As Appellant correctly points out, Figure 7B of Kobayashi shows a receiver with a single input 12 that receives a data stream of binary data symbols. Kobayashi, col. 6, ll. 1-40. In contrast, Appellant’s claim 34 refers to “data received on [a] plurality of inputs.” Likewise, Appellant’s Specification describes a receiver that receives data on a plurality of input lines, rather than on a single input. See generally Fig. 1; Spec. 5, 51. We conclude that the plurality of data symbols in Kobayashi are different pieces of data, not a plurality of inputs to a trellis decoder as discussed in Appellant’s Specification and recited in claim 34. Interpreting the plurality of inputs recited in claim 34 broadly enough to encompass the plurality of data symbols received on a single input in Kobayashi would not be consistent with Appellant’s Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). Thus, we agree with Appellant that the permutation compensated for in Kobayashi’s receiver is a permutation of data symbols received on a single input, not a permutation of inputs as recited in claim 34. In the Grounds of Rejection section of the Answer, the Examiner relies on Kobayashi’s Figure 14B rather than Figure 7B for teaching multiple inputs, but fails to explain how Figure 14B shows detecting and compensating for a permutation of multiple inputs. Ans. 4. Based on our review of Kobayashi, we find that Figure 14B shows a receiver in which an incoming data stream is demultiplexed into two parallel data streams, each of which contains permuted data that is decoded using an inverse permutation module. Kobayashi, col. 12, l. 56 – col. 13, l. 8. Thus, rather Appeal 2010-006637 Application 10/979,353 5 than compensating for a permutation of inputs, as recited in claim 34, the receiver in Kobayashi’s Figure 14B compensates for permuted data symbols within each data stream. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of claim 34, of independent claims 39 and 47, which include similar limitations, or of dependent claims 35-38, 40-46, and 48-53. We do not reach Appellant’s other arguments directed to additional limitations in claims 39 and 47. CONCLUSION Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 34-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 34-53 is reversed. REVERSED ELD