Ex Parte JEONG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2016

13599551 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2016)

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