Ex Parte Boutros et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 12, 2012

10848076 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOSEPH BOUTROS, NICOLAS GRESSET and LOIC BRUNEL ____________ Appeal 2010-010168 Application 10/848,076 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010168 Application 10/848,076 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1 and 5-131. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. An oral hearing was held on December 03, 2012. BACKGROUND Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to wireless telecommunications. Appellants disclose a method for decoding at least one signal transmitted and received by antennas including a symbol decoding step for producing estimated symbols representative of at least one transmitted symbol carried by the received signal, and likelihood values associated to the estimated symbols. The estimated symbols are identified among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of symbols which may potentially be received by the receiving antenna and are included in a sphere having a predetermined radius. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method for decoding at least one signal, comprising: receiving the at least one signal, the at least one signal being transmitted by at least one transmitting antenna and received by at least one receiving antenna, the at least one signal carrying at least one received symbol; defining a sphere having a predetermined radius and being centered on a particular symbol chosen among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of symbols, said particular symbol not representing the at least one received symbol; and 1 Claims 2-4 were objected to as dependent from a rejected claim, but include allowable subject matter. Final Office Action (“FOA”) 8. Appeal 2010-010168 Application 10/848,076 3 producing estimated symbols representative of at least one transmitted symbol transmitted by the at least one transmitting antenna and identified among the predetermined symbols included in the sphere and likelihood values associated to said estimated symbols. Rejections Claims 1 and 7-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald (U.S. 2003/0076890 A1). Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald and On the Expected Complexity of Sphere Decoding, Conference Record of the 35th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers, New York, NY: IEEE, Pacific Grove, CA, Nov. 4-7, 2001, Asilomar US, vol. 1 of 2, Conf. 35, 4 November 2001, pages 1051- 1055 (“Hassibi”). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Hochwald teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action (“FOA”) and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Answer. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. The Examiner finds that “Hochwald discloses the sphere decoding centered on ŝ[,] wherein ŝ is the center of the search sphere chosen from a candidate list of search values of s.” FOA 3; Ans. 9. The Examiner further Appeal 2010-010168 Application 10/848,076 4 finds that Hochwald does not specifically disclose the particular symbol chosen among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of symbols, but asserts that the center of the sphere is any point in the same space among the constellation of symbols. FOA 3, 5; Ans. 5, 9. The Examiner explains that in Hochwald the center of the decoding sphere is chosen from the lattice constellation. FOA 3; Ans. 9-10. The Examiner concludes that at the time the invention was made, one with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation of symbols to further improve the search efficiency and speed. FOA 3, Ans. 10; see also FOA 5, Ans. 5 (the discovery of optimum value of result effective variable involves only routine skill). We agree with Appellants’ argument that Hochwald does not teach or suggest that the sphere center ŝ is a symbol of the lattice constellation depicted in Hochwald’s Figures 4 and 5. App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 2. We further agree that Hochwald does not teach or suggest that the sphere center ŝ is a symbol chosen among predetermined symbols forming a lattice constellation. App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2. As pointed out by Appellants, the Examiner confuses the variables ŝ and s; Hochwald describes ŝ as the center of the search sphere and describes s as the candidate solution. App. Br. 9-10 (citing ¶¶ 0072, 0098-103, Figs. 4-5). For at least these reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 7-13 as obvious over Hochwald. As applied by the Examiner, Hassibi does not remedy the deficiencies of Hochwald. Ans. 6-8. For the same reasons as claims 1 and 7-13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 as obvious over Hochwald and Hassibi. Appeal 2010-010168 Application 10/848,076 5 DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1 and 7-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald. We REVERSE the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hochwald and Hassibi. REVERSED msc