Ex Parte JEONG et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 201613599551 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/599,551 08/30/2012 66547 7590 03/10/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hong-Sil JEONG 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. 678-4499 (Pl 9295) 7953 EXAMINER NGUYEN, THIEN DANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2117 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONG-SIL JEONG and SUNG-RYUL YUN Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599 ,551 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23. (Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24 each remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599,551 fNVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates generally to the transmission and reception of information in a broadcasting/communication system. (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, which is representative, reads as follows: 1. A method for transmitting information in a broadcasting/ communication system, the method comprising: [(i)] comparing a number of bits of an information word to be transmitted with a predetermined threshold value; [(ii)] if the number of bits of the information word is less than the predetermined threshold value, determining a first parameter pair; [(iii)] if the number of bits of the information word is not less than the predetermined threshold value, determining a second parameter pair; determining a number of bits to be punctured based on one of the first parameter pair and the second parameter pair; and puncturing the determined number of bits to be punctured, with respect to parity bits of a codeword generated by encoding the information word, [(iv)] wherein each of the first parameter pair and the second parameter pair includes a first parameter corresponding to a rate of a number of bits to be shortened to the number of bits to be punctured and a second parameter corresponding to a correction factor. 2 Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599,551 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Hocevar US 2006/0123277 Al June 8, 2006 Jeong (et al.) US 2011/0119568 Al May 19, 2011 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hocevar. (Final Act. 4.) Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hocevar and Jeong. (Final Act. 14.) ISSUES Appellants argue that Hocevar does not teach recitations (i}-(iv) of claim 1. (App. Br. 6-10.) ANALYSIS 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 is taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following primarily for emphasis. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20 The Examiner maps the disputed limitations in claim 1 to Hocevar' s disclosure, citing the flow diagrams ofHocevar Figures 4 and 7a. (Ans. 2- 9.) The Examiner maps disputed limitation (i) to decision 47 and disputed 3 Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599,551 limitations (ii) and (iii) to the ''No" and "Yes" paths, respectively, through decision 47. (Id. at 2-6.) The Examiner maps the first parameter in the first parameter pair in disputed limitation (ii) to the values of 0, 0 for the number of shortening bits and number of puncturing bits (in the "No" path). (Id. at 5.) The Examiner maps the first parameter in the second parameter pair in disputed limitation (iii) to the number of shortening bits and puncturing bits determined by process 48 (in the "Yes" path). (Id. at 5.) The Examiner maps the second parameter for both parameter pairs to the desired code rate selected by process 44. (Id. at 4--6.) Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because decision 4 7 does not compare a number of bits to be transmitted with a predetermined threshold value. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.) Appellants argue that the desired code word length, determined in process 42 and compared in decision 47, is unrelated to the number ofbits to be transmitted. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, and Appellants have not persuasively rebutted, paragraph 78 of Hocevar discloses setting the desired code word length to be the number of information bits to be encoded. (Ans. 2-3, citing Hocevar i-f 7 8, Fig. 7 A.) Appellants further argue that decision 4 7 does not compare the desired code word length with a predetermined value because the starting code word length determined in process 46 is chosen from a subset of starting code word lengths. (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As indicated by Appellants and as set forth by a passage cited by Appellants, the starting code word lengths are predetermined values. (App. Br. 8-9; Hocevar i-f 55, Table 1.) After process 46 determines which of the predetermined starting code word lengths to use, decision 4 7 compares the 4 Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599,551 desired code word length to that predetermined starting code length. (Hocevar Fig. 4, i-f 55.) Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred because the "No" path in Hocevar Figure 4 does not determine a first parameter pair due to the fact that the "No" path avoids process 48, which Hocevar indicates determines a number of shortening bits and a number of puncturing bits. (App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3--4.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, by selecting the "No" path, decision 47 has determined that there will be no shortening bits and no puncturing bits, which corresponds to determining that the shortening bits and puncturing bits will be 0, 0, respectively. 1 (Ans. 4--5.) Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred because determining a number of shortening bits and the number of puncturing bits does not determine a parameter corresponding to the rate of the number of bits to be shortened to the number of bits to be punctured, and thus Hocevar fails to teach recitation (iv). (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2.) The Examiner, however, finds that the rate of the number of bits to be shortened to the number of bits to be punctured is the ratio of the determined number of shortening bits and the determined puncturing bits. (Ans. 7-8.) Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or evidence rebutting that finding. Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred because the selected code rate in Figure 4 does not correspond to the recited second parameter because the selected code rate is based on channel conditions, not based on 1 Similarly, determining that there are no shortening bits and no puncturing bits determines the positions of the shortening and puncturing bits (i.e., there are no shortening or puncturing bits at any position). 5 Appeal2014-004564 Application 13/599,551 the length of the information word to be transmitted. (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4.) We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner finds, claim 1 does not require that the second parameter be determined according to the length of the information word to be transmitted. (Ans. 8-9.) Claim 1 only requires that the parameter pair be determined by the comparison with the predetermined threshold value. (See claim 1.) Parameter pairs with different first parameters are different parameter pairs even if they have the same second parameter. Therefore, because, as the Examiner finds, the first parameter is determined by the comparison with the predetermined threshold value, claim 1 is satisfied. (Ans. 4--9.) Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 7, 8, 13, 14, 19, and 20, not separately argued. (App. Br. 6-11.) Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 Appellants argue that claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 are patentable over Hocevar and Jeong based on their dependency on independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. (App. Br. 11.) Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 16, 17, 22, and 23 for the reasons given above for claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation