Ex Parte Azadet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13348851 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 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.
13/348,851 01/12/2012 Kameran Azadet Azadet 38-K-US2 1767
144016 7590 01/27/2017
SheriHan Rnsis; P P
EXAMINER
1560 Broadway, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
SAM, PHIRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
e-docket @ sheridanross. com
mreno @ sheridanross. com
mells worth @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMERAN AZADET
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates “generally to cross-talk
cancellation techniques, and more particularly, to methods and apparatus for
reducing cross-talk in frequency division multiplexed (FDM)
communication systems.” (Spec. 1).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for receiving a frequency division multiplexed
signal, said method comprising the steps of:
decomposing said frequency division multiplexed signal
into a plurality of frequency bands;
converting said decomposed frequency bands to baseband
signals; and
removing far-end cross-talk from one or more of said
converted baseband signals, wherein said far-end crosstalk is
caused by one or more of said frequency bands.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3, 5—7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Aburakawa et al. (US
2002/0030870 Al, pub. Mar. 14, 2002) (“Aburakawa”) and Agazzi (US
2002/0196747 Al, pub. Dec. 26, 2002).
Claims 2 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Aburakawa, Agazzi and Cioffi (US
5,887,032, iss. Mar. 23, 1999).
Claims 4 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Aburakawa, Agazzi and Wala (US
2010/0061291 Al, pub. Mar. 11,2010).
2
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
II. ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Aburakawa, in view of Agazzi, teaches or suggests
“removing far-end cross-talk from one or more of said converted baseband
signals” (claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Aburakawa
1. Aburakawa discloses frequency converters convert the divided
signals into signals having an intermediate frequency, and modems further
convert the signals into base-band signals. (Figs. 1—3, 5—8, H 12, 28, 30).
2. In Aburakawa, baseband modulation units receive demultiplexed
signals. (Id.)
3. A radio signal is divided into plurality of signals by a
combiner/divider, where a frequency converter further divides these signals
into baseband signals. Id. at 12.
Agassi
4. Agazzi discloses a receiver that receives the transmitted signal
combined with far-end cross-talk (FEXT) impairment signals and a FEXT
cancellation system associated with the receiver removes the FEXT
impairment signals from the combination signal. Figs. 6, 14, Abst., Cls. 1,
36, 37,H10, 13, 15.
3
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 5, and 7
Regarding claim 1, Appellant contends:
Even assuming that Agazzi removes far-end cross-talk
from one or more of said baseband signals, Agazzi does not
disclose or suggest removing far-end cross-talk from one or more
of baseband signals that are converted from decomposed
frequency bands, as variously required by each independent
claim, as amended.
Br. 4.
Appellant specifically contends:
Agazzi processes baseband signals and there is no
conversion of decomposed frequency bands to baseband signals.
Thus, Agazzi cannot show "removing far-end cross-talk from
one or more of said converted baseband signals. . . .The
Examiner must give patentable weight to the word “converted.”
Id. at 5.
Appellant further contends:
Applicants submit that without the hindsight of the present
invention, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to (i) convert decomposed frequency bands to
baseband signals; and then (ii) remove far-end cross-talk from
one or more of the converted baseband signals.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the
Appellant is arguing Agazzi separately when the rejection is based on the
combination of Agazzi in view of Aburakawa. Here, Appellant’s arguments
focus on the teachings of the applied prior art references separately instead
of addressing what the combined teachings would have taught or suggested
4
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.”).
Thus, although Appellant argues Agazzi doesn’t teach the removal of
far-end cross-talk is from converted baseband signals (Br. 4—5), the
Examiner cites Aburakawa, not Agazzi, for teaching converted baseband
signals. (Final Act. 3, citing Aburakawa, Figs. 1—3, 5—8, Tflf 12, 28, 30).
Specifically, the Examiner finds Aburakawa’s modems (e.g., 1 12), which
convert the divided signals into base-band signals, teach or at least suggest
the recited “converted baseband signals.” (Id.). The Examiner instead relies
on Agazzi’s FEXT cancellation system (| 13), associated with the receiver
removing the FEXT impairment signals from the combination signals, for
teaching or at least suggesting “removing far-end cross-talk from one or
more combination signals.” (Ans. 4—5). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Aburakawa and
Agazzi teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. (Ans. 4—6).
As to Appellant’s hindsight contentions (Br. 5), we are mindful the
Supreme Court has clearly stated the “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls.” Id. at 419
We conclude that the skilled artisan, upon reading Agazzi’s teaching
of removing far-end cross-talk from combination signals (FF 4) would have
5
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
found it obvious to also include removing far-end cross-talk from converted
baseband signals. (FF 1—3). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s
finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to modify Aburakawa’s system by incorporating Agazzi’s FEXT
cancellation system (| 13) to “achieve high overall performance and
efficient accommodation of the communication lines . . . .” (Final Act. 4).
Moreover, on this record, Appellant has provided no evidence that
modifying Aburakawa’s system of converted baseband signals to include
removing FEXT from such signals was “uniquely challenging or difficult for
one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant presented
evidence that the Examiner’s proffered incorporation of Agazzi’s FEXT
cancellation system (| 13) in the same field of endeavor would have yielded
more than expected results.
Rather, we find Appellant’s invention is simply a modification of
familiar prior art practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited
combination of references) that would have realized a predictable result.
The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
We note Appellant, not having filed a Reply Brief, has not traversed
the Examiner’s clarifications and responses to Appellant’s arguments in the
Brief. Therefore, on this record, Appellant has not persuaded us of error
regarding the Examiner’s clarifications.
6
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
Accordingly, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 4—7, which are not separately argued.1 (Br. 4—5).
Regarding Appellant’s arguments on the Examiner’s separate § 103(a)
rejections of claims 2 and 8; 3 and 9; and 4, 10, 11 and 12, Appellant again
argues the references separately. (Br. 6—7). For the same reasons as those
explained above and for the reasons and findings set forth by the Examiner
(Ans. 6—8), which Appellant has not rebutted, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims also.
We note Appellant does not appeal the rejection of claim 6. (App.
Br. 2: “Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are being appealed.”). Pursuant to rule
§ 41.31(c), when an appeal is taken it is “presumed to be taken from the
rejection of all claims under rejection unless cancelled by an amendment
filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.” Furthermore, pursuant to
rule § 41.39 (a)(1), “[a]n Examiner’s answer is deemed to incorporate all the
grounds of rejection set forth in the Office action from which the appeal is
taken, (as modified by any advisory action and pre-appeal brief conference
decision), unless the Examiner’s answer expressly indicates that a ground of
rejection has been withdrawn.” Here, the Examiner has not withdrawn the
rejection of claim 6 (Final Act. 7), and Appellant may not appeal a subset of
the rejected claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c). Arguments not made are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, we summarily sustain
the Examiner’s uncontested rejection of claim 6.
1 Appellant argues claim 4 in two separate groupings. (Br. 4, 7).
7
Appeal 2016-004896
Application 13/348,851
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8