Ex Parte Clausen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13384834 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/384,834 07/25/2012 Axel Clausen KRAUP207WOUS 1192
18052 7590 09/05/2017
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
CADEAU, WEDNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
docketing @ eschweilerlaw. com
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AXEL CLAUSEN, VLADIMIR OKSMAN,
and HEINRICH SCHENK
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/3 84,8341
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 25—32 and 39-43. Claims 1—24 and 33—38 are canceled.
App. Br. 6—7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose shifting “sequences of pilot signals on different
communication channels of a communication connection . . . with respect to
1 Appellants identify Lantiq Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co.KG, wholly owned
by Intel Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/384,834
each other. In other embodiments, crosstalk couplings are calculated based
on intermediate vectors.” Abs.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 25, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
25. An apparatus comprising a vectoring device configured to
reduce crosstalk between a plurality of communication
connections by vectoring and determine crosstalk coupling
between the communication connections, each communication
connection comprising a plurality of communication channels,
the vectoring device being further configured to adapt the
vectoring based on a plurality of error values, each error value
being indicative of a difference between a transmitted pilot
signal and a received pilot signal, the pilot signals being parts
of sequences of pilot signals, and the error values for at least
one of the communication connections being derived from
different communication channels of the at least one of the
communication connections and comprising one error value for
each element of the sequences, the error values being obtained
based on pilot signals received during a time shorter than the
duration of one of the sequences assigned to the at least one of
the communication connections.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 25, 27—32, and 39-412 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rashid-Farrokhi (EP 1164758 A2;
published Dec. 19, 2001) and Auer (US 2005/0147025 Al; published July 7,
2005). Final Act. 5-13.
2 The Examiner omits claim 41 from the statement of the rejection (Final
Act. 5), but addresses claim 41 in the body of the rejection {id. at 12—13).
2
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/384,834
The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rashid-Farrokhi, Auer, and Chen etal. (US 8,175,538 Bl;
issued May 8, 2012). Final Act. 13.
The Examiner rejects claims 42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rashid-Farrokhi, Auer, and Scherzer et al. (US
6,901,062 B2; issued May 31, 2005). Final Act. 13—14.
ANAFYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 25—28, 21, 32, and 39—43
In rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
that Rashid-Farrokhi’s calculation of weights adjusted from error
determination renders obvious error values being obtained based on pilot
signals, the pilot signals being parts of sequences ofpilot signals. Final Act.
6 (citing, e.g., Rashid-Farrokhi 134). The Examiner relies on Auer’s
“estimating a plurality of channels from a plurality of distinct transmitting
points to a receiving point,... the first pilot sequence and the second pilot
sequence being orthogonal to each other . . . and having a phase shift to each
other” (Auer 13 8) to render obvious the pilot signals being received during
a time shorter than the duration of one of the sequences assigned to the at
least one of the communication connections (Final Act. 7). In particular, the
Examiner finds that Auer “teaches transmitting shifted pilot signals using a
plurality of transmitter[s] ... to be received in order to estimate the channel
3
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/384,834
since pilots from other receivers that are shifted are used to calculate the
channel information for that receiver.” Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Thus, the
Examiner finds that in Auer “the channel/frequency for the last transmitter
can be estimated as soon as a first symbol [of the training sequence from that
transmitter] is transmitted ... by using previous symbols receive[d]from the
other channels/frequencies.” Id. at 4 (emphasis added). That is, the
Examiner interprets the claimed obtaining of error values to encompass error
values obtained based on previous transmissions (e.g., on other channels or
frequencies) during a time shorter than the duration of another transmission
(i.e., on a particular channel or frequency).
Appellants do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of the disputed recitations, but rather contend the Examiner
erred because “there is no hint or teaching whatsoever in Auer that any
channel estimation can be performed before the complete sequences are
received or that error values during a shorter time than the length of a
sequence may already [be] used for a[n] adaptation of the vectoring, as
claimed.” App. Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue “Auer merely teaches
how to separate sequences received at a single receiving point from a
plurality of transmitters, but does not give any hint that an estimation may be
performed based on error values received during a shorter time than a length
of the complete sequence.” Id.', see also id. at 5 (citing Auer 195).
Appellants’ arguments fail to show persuasively that the disputed
recitations preclude obtaining error values for previous transmissions while
another transmission is being received (i.e., during a time shorter than the
duration of one of the sequences). Appellants also do not show error in the
Examiner’s findings directed to Auer teaching, suggesting, or otherwise
4
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/384,834
rendering obvious obtaining error values in the overlapping manner
described by the Examiner. See Ans. 3—5. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner’s that the combination of Rashid-Farrokhi and Auer renders
obvious “error values being obtained based on pilot signals received during a
time shorter than the duration of one of the sequences assigned to the at least
one of the communication connections” with “the pilot signals being parts of
sequences of pilot signals,” as recited in claim 25.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 25, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 26—
28, 31, 32, and 39-43, which Appellants do not argue separately.
Claims 29 and 30
In rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on
Rashid-Farrokhi’s production of a combined weighted signal using weighted
versions of transmitted data signals to teach, suggest, or otherwise render
obvious transmitters each configured to transmit the respective assigned
sequence over all communication channels of its assigned communication
connections with a shift between at least two sequences assigned to different
communication channels of a communication connection. Final Act. 8—9
(citing Rashid-Farrokhi || 5, 6, 12—14, 34, Figs. 1, 2); see also Ans. 6 (“the
first non-shifted sequence is transmitted on frequency F i and F11 instead of
just on Fi, while the first shifted sequence is transmitted on frequency F2 and
F12, and so on”).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Auer at best teaches
a shifting between different communication connections involving different
receivers, but not for different communication channels of a single
communication connection, different communication connections using
5
Appeal 2017-002251
Application 13/384,834
different transceivers.” App. Br. 5 (citing Auer |35). However, the
Examiner relies on Rashid-Farrokhi in combination with Auer, not Auer
alone, to render obvious the disputed recitations.
Appellants argue Rashid-Farrokhi does not cure the alleged deficiency
of Auer because Rashid-Farrokhi “is completely silent regarding” the
approach of “using different communication connections with different
sequences having communication channels using the same sequences.”
App. Br. 5 (citing Rashid-Farrokhi || 5, 6, 12—14, 34). However,
Appellants conclusory contentions fail to rebut persuasively the Examiner’s
specific fact findings as to the scope of Rashid’s teachings and suggestions.
See, e.g., Ans. 6. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Rashid-Farrokhi and Auer renders obvious “each of the
transmitters is configured to transmit the respective assigned sequence over
all communication channels of its assigned communication connections with
a shift between at least two sequences assigned to different communication
channels of a communication connection,” as recited in claim 29.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 29, and claim 30, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 25—32 and 39-43.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6