Ex Parte Cendrillon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2016

12833188 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/833, 188 07/09/2010 Raphael Jean Cendrillon
89394 7590 04/25/2016
Futurewei Technologies, Inc,
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4194-23201 5919
EXAMINER
VU, HOANG-CHUONG Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2016 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):
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAPHAEL JEAN CENDRILLON and
GUOZHULONG
Appeal2014-005740
Application 12/833, 188
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-5, 14--18, and 26-33. Claims 6-13 and 19-25 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Futurewei Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005740
Application 12/833, 188
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below reflecting Appellants' emphasis (App.
Br. 8), is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a vectoring control entity (VCE) at a central office (CO)
coupled to a plurality of first transceivers at a plurality of
customer premise equipments (CPEs) and to a plurality of
second transceivers at the CO via a plurality of corresponding
digital subscriber lines (DSLs) and configured to process a
plurality of probing signals comprising a plurality of
orthogonal frequency signatures from the first transceivers that
correspond to the DSLs to determine a plurality of upstream
dominant crosstalk channels in the DSLs; and
a crosstalk canceller coupled to the VCE and to the
second transceivers at the CO and configured to process a
subset of a plurality of signals from the first transceivers that
correspond to the upstream dominant crosstalk channels to
reduce crosstalk noise in the DSLs in the upstream,
wherein each of the probing signals is transmitted in a
single sync symbol in each of the DSLs.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) claims 1-5, 14--18, 26, 27, and 29-32 in view of the combination of
Kramer et al. (US 2010/0202554 Al; Aug. 12, 2010) and Schenk et al. (US
2010/0195478 Al; Aug. 5, 2010) and claims 28 and 33 in view of the
combination of Kramer, Schenk, and Redfern (US 2003/0198299 Al; Oct.
23, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Kramer and Schenk fails to
teach or suggest a probing signal or orthogonal frequency signature
2
Appeal2014-005740
Application 12/833, 188
transmitted in a single sync symbol in each DSL, as claimed. App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue both Kramer and Schenk
teach orthogonal sync or pilot symbol sequences, not individual pilot
symbols that are mutually orthogonal. App. Br. 8-9 (citing Schenk Fig. 5,
i-fi-133, 40); Reply Br. 7-8 (citing Kramer i-f 103) (emphasis omitted).
Appellants also argue that Kramer's "method works when there is only one
dominant source of crosstalk and the method works in a fundamentally
different manner than disclosed in claim 1" because Kramer discloses
employing a time-domain pilot symbol and observing differences in signs of
adjacent tones, as opposed to the claimed invention which uses orthogonal
frequency signatures to determine a plurality of dominant crosstalk channels.
App. Br. 10-11.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. As cited by the
Examiner (Ans. 14--15 (citing Kramer i-fi-150, 101, 103-111)), Kramer
teaches identifying sources of crosstalk using distinct frequency
"expansions" for each channel that "may be viewed as providing observable
'signatures' for the respective transmitters." Kramer i-f l 01; see also Kramer
i1 50 (describing conventional methods of identifying crosstalk, stating
"mutually orthogonal pilot signals are transmitted over the channels, and
then the received signals are correlated with each pilot signal in tum"; "in
order for the given receiver to distinguish between signals sent by different
transmitters, the pilot signals are usually chosen to be orthogonal to each
other"). Further, Kramer teaches "each of the transmitters in such an
embodiment may have a different pilot signal" (Kramer i-f 116) and "distinct
probing signals may be generated for transmission by respective ones of the
N transmitters with each such signal being a combination of the single pilot
3
Appeal2014-005740
Application 12/833, 188
symbol and a corresponding one of the frequency expansions" (Kramer
i-f 117). Compare Kramer i-fi-1 116-117, with Spec. i-f 34 ("a sync symbol that
comprises one of the orthogonal frequency signatures may be transmitted on
each of the lines, such that the frequency signatures transmitted on each of
the lines may be orthogonal, e.g., may not be substantially correlated, to the
other frequency signatures"). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
Kramer teaches a plurality of probing signals comprising a plurality of
orthogonal frequency signatures, wherein each of the probing signals is
transmitted in a single sync symbol in each of the DSLs as claimed.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that Kramer's
method is fundamentally different than the method of claim 1. App. Br. 12.
As noted above, Kramer discloses frequency signatures as claimed, and
Appellants cite no evidence for the Specification or otherwise that support
an interpretation of claim 1 that excludes Kramer's teachings because of
what Appellants characterize as "time-domain pilot symbols." See App.
Br. 11-12.
Having considered the Examiner's rejection in view of each of
Appellants' arguments and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of
error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We adopt as our own the
Examiner's findings, conclusions, and reasons in the Final Action and the
Examiner's Answer consistent with the above, and we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 14--18, and 26-33,
which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 7-8 (identifying claim 1 as
representative).
4
Appeal2014-005740
Application 12/833, 188
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 14--18,
and 26-33.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5