Ex Parte Amtmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2017

14299992 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

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. 14/299,992 06/09/2014 Franz Amtmann o 099503US3 1084 65913 7590 Intellectual Property and Licensing NXPB.V. 411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41 SAN JOSE, CA 95134 EXAMINER ODOM, CURTIS B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2631 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): ip. department .u s @ nxp. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANZ AMTMANN, DOMINIK JOSEF BERGER, WOLFGANG EBER, STEFAN POSCH, and ROBERT RECHBERGER Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,9921 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3 and 6—16,2 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NXP B.V. App. Br. 1. 2 Claim 4 has been conditionally allowed if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of claim 1 and intervening claim 3. Final Act. 7. 3 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Feb. 5, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed Aug. 3, 2016 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,992 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “a data carrier [device] provided with at least two decoding stages.” Title. According to Appellants, the “two decoding stages for the decoding of received data signals encoded in conformity with a Retum-To-Zero encoding method or a Miller encoding method.” Spec. 4:31—32. Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A data carrier device comprising: a receiving device configured to receive a modulated carrier signal, wherein the modulated carrier signal includes an encoded data signal, wherein the encoded data signal is either Manchester encoded or Miller encoded; a demodulation device configured to demodulate the received modulated carrier signal and output the included encoded data signal; and a decoding device configured to decode the encoded data signal and output data, said decoding device further comprising: a first decoding stage, and a second decoding stage, wherein the first decoding stage is configured to decode said data signal in conformity with a first decoding method and the second decoding stage is configured to decode said data signal in conformity with a second decoding method, wherein the first decoding method is Manchester and the second decoding method is Miller. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). mailed July 21, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed Dec. 3, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed June 9, 2014 (“Spec.”). 2 Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,992 Examiner’s Rejections and References (1) Claims 1—3 and 7—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shaw et al. (US 5,227,783; issued July 13, 1993; “Shaw”). Ans. 3-5. (2) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shaw and Webster et al. (US 4,617,553; issued Oct. 14, 1986). Ans. 5-6. (3) Claims 14—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shaw and Larson (US 4,424,565; issued Jan. 3, 1984). Ans. 6—7. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1—3 and 7—13 based on Shaw Claim 1 recites, in part: “a decoding device ... comprising: a first decoding stage, and a second decoding stage, wherein the first decoding stage is configured to decode said data signal in conformity with a first decoding method and the second decoding stage is configured to decode said data signal in conformity with a second decoding method, wherein the first decoding method is Manchester and the second decoding method is Miller.” Claim 12 recites similar limitations. In support of the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 12, the Examiner finds Shaw discloses, among other features, Appellants’ claimed “decoding device . . . comprising a first decoding stage and a second decoding stage ... in conformity with a Manchester decoding method ... in conformity with a Miller decoding method” in the form of a decoder 205, shown in Shaw’s Figure 2, to translate the PCM bit stream into three parallel 3 Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,992 output forms, including: (i) NRZ level (Non Return to Zero-Level), (ii) biphase-level (Manchester code), and (iii) delayed modulation-mark (Miller code). Ans. 3^1 (citing Shaw 1:63-2:5, 2:6-13, 14:3-11, 26-42). Appellants acknowledge Shaw’s microprogrammed PCM decoder 205, shown in Figure 2, is used to translate an input PCM bit stream into three output forms. App. Br. 5. Nevertheless, Appellants argue “Shaw does not provide decoding stages that correspond to two different decoding methods” and “[bjecause Shaw does not perform any decoding, Shaw also lacks the first and second decoding stages recited in independent claim 1.” Id. In addition, Appellants argue that “[translating an input serial PCM bit stream is not the same as decoding because Shaw does not disclose any decoding of encoded data signals.” App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Shaw’s “decoder 205 does not use Manchester and Miller methods in respective first and second decoding stages as claimed” because “Shaw’s decoder 205 actually ‘selects one of four input PCM bit streams” and “does not perform the claimed decoding on the input serial bit stream.” Reply Br. 2—3. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 7—8. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations. Id. For additional emphasis, we note Shaw teaches that input digital data is encoded by a PCM encoder using at least ten different PCM codes including NRZ level (Non Return to Zero- Level), biphase-level (Manchester code), and delayed modulation-mark (Miller code). Ans. 7 (citing Shaw 1:63—2:5); see also Shaw 19:10-19. Shaw also teaches PCM decoder 205 configured (via software or hardware) 4 Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,992 to decode the input PCM bit stream into three different decoded bit streams using different decoding methods such as NRZ, Manchester, and Miller. Id. at 8. As such, Appellants’ proffered distinction between Shaw’s three decoding stages with different decoded bit streams and Appellants’ claimed two decoding stages is misplaced because Appellants’ claim 1 is open-ended and does not preclude additional decoding stages such as that disclosed by Shaw. Likewise, and contrary to Appellants’ argument, the terms “decoding” and “translating” are interchangeable to those skilled in the art. For example, “decoding” is well-known to those skilled in the art as the process of translating received messages into codewords of a given code, as evidenced from Shaw’s decoder 205, shown in Figure 2. See also Shaw 14:27-42. For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 and their dependent claims 2—11 and 13—16, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 9. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1—3 and 7—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shaw; (2) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shaw and Webster; and (3) claims 14—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shaw and Larson. 5 Appeal 2016-007570 Application 14/299,992 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3 and 6—16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6