Ex Parte Cameron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 4, 2014

12463386 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KELLY BRIAN CAMERON, BA-ZHONG SHEN, and
HAU THIEN TRAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14-17, 19, and 20 (App. Br. 3; Ans. 4). 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a Turbo Trellis Code Modulation
(TTCM) communication system having a transmitter that includes a TTCM
encoder and a receiver that includes a TTCM decoder operable to decode
each of the various rates of which the data is encoded in accordance with a
rate control sequence (Abstract; Spec. 9:11-26).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a decoder that is operative to decode a signal received
from a communication channel, based on a first plurality of rate
controls and a second plurality of rate controls, thereby
generating estimates of information bits encoded within
symbols of the signal; and
a rate control sequencer, coupled to the decoder, that is
operative to provide the first plurality of rate controls to the
decoder; and wherein:

1 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5, 11-13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Nee in view of Nagano and Stewart
has been withdrawn and substituted with an objection to these claims; where
the claims would be allowed if the claims were amended to include all the
limitations of the claims from which they depend. (Ans. 4).
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

3
the decoder firstly is operative to decode a first portion of
the signal in accordance with the first plurality of rate controls
such that each respective symbol within the first portion of the
signal is decoded based on a respective one of the first plurality
of rate controls;
based on a change of a signal to noise ratio (SNR)
corresponding to the communication channel, the rate control
sequencer is operative to provide the second plurality of rate
controls to the decoder; and
the decoder secondly is operative to decode a second
portion of the signal that follows the first portion of the signal
in accordance with the second plurality of rate controls such
that each respective symbol within the second portion of the
signal is decoded based on a respective one of the second
plurality of rate controls.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Nagano US 4,504,943 Mar. 12, 1985
Ohno US 5,381,411 Jan. 10, 1995
Van Nee US 6,175,550 B1 Jan.16, 2001

Claims 1, 6-10, 14-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Nee in view of Nagano.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Van Nee in view of Nagano and Ohno.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Van Nee and Nagano teaches or would have
suggested “based on a change of a signal to noise ratio (SNR)
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

4
corresponding to the communication channel, the rate control sequencer is
operative to provide the second plurality of rate controls to the decoder” and
a “decoder secondly is operative to decode a second portion of the signal
that follows the first portion of the signal in accordance with the second
plurality of rate controls such that each respective symbol within the second
portion of the signal is decoded based on a respective one of the second
plurality of rate controls” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Van Nee
1. Van Nee discloses an OFDM modulation scheme for a receiver
within a mobile terminal that dynamically changes/scales the operating
parameters and/or characteristics of the OFDM system when a dynamic
control circuitry 15 determines that different operating parameters and/or
characteristics are necessary or advantageous (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 2, ll. 60-66;
col. 3, ll. 35-43; col. 4, ll. 9-13; and col. 12, ll. 15-20). The various
operating parameters that may be scaled include: the number of carriers, the
symbol duration, the number of bits per symbol per carrier, the forward error
correction coding scheme, the coding rate, and the fraction of the symbol
duration that is used as guard time (col. 3, ll. 3-11). The various operating
characteristics that can be scaled include: the transmission rate, the SNR, the
delay-spread tolerance, the signal bandwidth, and the implementation
complexity (col. 3, ll. 13-20).
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

5
2. The method teaches that each symbol within each processed
OFDM signal has its operating characteristic changed based upon the
determination of the dynamic control circuitry which generates a
corresponding feedback signal; where the operating characteristic includes at
least one of the transmission rate, SNR, or delay spread tolerance (col. 12,
ll. 1-14).
Nagano
3. Nagano discloses a time domain multiplexer having a plurality
of channel units 12'-1 to 12'-N, where each channel unit is supplied with
corresponding control signals V1-VN indicative of rates control signals
(Abstract; Fig. 4; col. 4, ll. 48-61).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6-10, 14-17, 19, and 20
Appellants contend “the operations of . . . respective blocks (46, 48,
and 50) as identified by the Examiner perform operations related to phase
estimation and phase compensation, which are not decoding operations that
generate estimates of information bits encoded within symbols of the signal”
(App. Br. 23). Appellants argue “the dynamic brake control unit 47 [of
Van Nee] is not operable to provide different respective rate controls [to]
two different respective portions within a given signal (i.e., a same or
common signal) based on a change of signal to noise ratio corresponding to
a communication channel” (App. Br. 24, emphasis added). Appellants
contend further Van Nee teaches “2 separate, distinct signals are generated”
where “the second signal [is] generated based upon information of the first
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

6
signal” and the signals “are not different portions within the same/common
signal” (App. Br. 24, emphasis added).
Appellants argue also “[t]he ‘dynamically scaled operating
characteristics’ as described within Van Nee do not correspond to different
symbols of different respective portions (e.g., second vs. first) within a
common/same signal” (App. Br. 24, emphasis added). Appellants finally
contend “teaching and disclosure of Nagano is particularly away from the
subject matter as claimed” because “Nagano [is] directed towards enabling
simultaneous/in parallel/at the same processing of multiple respective
information signals D1-DN as opposed to teaching and disclosing subject
matter in which different respective portions of a signal are processed at
different respective times” (App. Br. 36).
However, the Examiner finds “[V]an Nee is a device for transmitting
information data as a sequence of OFDM symbols by adaptively/
dynamically scaling various operating parameters and/or characteristics of
the OFDM system such as data rate for each OFDM symbol” (Ans. 16). The
Examiner finds further the “the decoder (blocks 46, 48, 50 and 52 in Figure
4 in [V]an Nee) is operative to dynamically scale [the] data rate during
signal transmission responsive to changes in signal quality parameters such
as changes in signal to noise ratio” (Ans. 17). The Examiner notes “[t]he
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms defines ‘decoder’ as ‘[a]
device that performs decoding’, i.e., a device that reverses the effect of a
previous encoding” (Ans. 15, emphasis omitted) and a “‘signal’ as ‘[t]he
physical representation of data’” (Ans. 16, emphasis omitted). The
Examiner notes further “a first portion of a signal is still a signal, i.e., a first
signal” and “a second portion of a signal is still a signal, i.e., a second
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

7
signal” (Ans. 19). The Examiner notes that “[V]an Nee teaches that
dynamic scaling of coding is performed on a symbol-by-symbol basis” (Ans.
27).
We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Further, while Appellants raised
numerous additional, non-persuasive and/or non-commensurate arguments
for patentability of the cited dependent claims (App. Br. 21-36), we find that
the Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each of those arguments by a
preponderance of the evidence (Ans. 15-28). Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which we incorporate herein
by reference.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 and the Specification do not define “first portion of the
signal” and “second portion of the signal” (claim 1). Thus, we give “a
second portion of the signal that follows the first portion of the signal” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a second set of data that follows a first
set of data.
Van Nee is directed to an OFDM modulation scheme for a receiver
within a mobile terminal that dynamically changes/scales the operating
parameters and/or characteristics of the OFDM system when a dynamic
control circuitry determines that different operating parameters and/or
characteristics are necessary or advantageous; wherein, a required change in
SNR (an operating characteristic), results in a dynamic change in the rate
control (an operating parameter) (FF 1). Each symbol within each processed
signal is affected by the changed operating characteristic of SNR (FF 2).
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

8
We agree with the Examiner’s finding the decoder “is operative to
dynamically scale [the] data rate during signal transmission responsive to
changes in signal quality parameters such as changes in signal to noise ratio”
(Ans. 17, emphasis omitted). That is, we find that Van Nee’s receiver
comprises a rate control sequencer operative to provide a second rate control
to the decoder within the receiver based upon a change in the SNR (FF 1).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding “[V]an Nee teaches that
dynamic scaling of coding is performed on a symbol-by-symbol basis”
(Ans. 27). That is, we find that Van Nee’s receiver decodes each respective
symbol within the second set of data based on the change in rate control
(FF 2).
In addition, Nagano is directed to a time domain multiplexer having a
plurality of channel units, where each channel unit is supplied with
corresponding control signals indicative of rates control signals (FF 3). We
agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Nagano teaches each respective
symbol of a particular channel 12'-1 to 12'-N within a first portion of the
signal at a first time is decoded based on a respective one of the first
plurality of rate controls V1 to VN” (Ans. 8). That is, we find Nagano
discloses that each respective symbol is decoded based upon the respective
rate control (FF 3).
Appellants have not identified persuasive support for a direction
divergent from the claimed invention, since we do not find that the
disclosure in Van Nee directed to dynamically processing signals would
discourage one skilled in the art from further modifying the process by using
the one-to-one correspondence between symbols of a signal and the rate
control parameters of Nagano (FF 3).
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

9
The issue we address here is not whether the system of Nagano could
be bodily incorporated in the system of Van Nee but rather whether a person
of ordinary skill, upon reading Van Nee, would be discouraged from using
the correspondence between symbols of a signal and rate control parameters
from the teachings of Nagano. We see no error with the Examiner’s explicit
motivation that combining the references would be obvious “because one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that use of each respective
symbol within the first portion of the signal is decoded based on a respective
one of the first plurality of rate controls would have provided for rate
optimization based on channel conditions” (Ans. 26). The Supreme Court
has stated that “[t]he 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).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Van Nee’s OFDM system (including a decoder coupled to a dynamic
control circuit) that determines whether a change in the SNR is required, and
changes the rate control to achieve this requirement with the symbol to rate
control correspondence, as disclosed in Nagano, produces an apparatus
including a decoder that decodes each symbol of each signal using a
corresponding change in the rate control based upon a change in the SNR,
which would be obvious (Ans. 26; FF 1-3).
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Van Nee in view of Nagano. Appellants
present similar arguments with respect to dependent claims 6, 7, 10, 14, 15,
and 19 (App. Br. 36-38). Further, independent claims 9 and 17 having
Appeal 2011-012822
Application 12/463,386

10
similar claim language and claims 6-8, 10, 14-16, 19, and 20 (depending
from claims 1, 9, and 17), fall with claim 1.

Claim 2
Appellants argue “Ohno fails to overcome the deficiencies of Van Nee
and Nagano,” and therefore claims 2 is patentable over the cited prior art for
the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 38).
As noted supra, however, we find the combination of Van Nee and
Nagano at least suggests all the contested limitations of claim 1. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Van Nee in view of Nagano and Ohno.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6-10, 14-17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc