Ex Parte Kuropatwinski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2016

12681447 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/681,447 04/02/2010 Marcin Kuropatwinski
24112 7590 04/26/2016
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-6832 I P24828-US2 4375
EXAMINER
V ARNDELL, ROSS E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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 MARCIN KUROPATWINSKI, JANUSZ KLEJSA,
and WILLEM BASTIAAN KLEIJN
Appeal2014-005188
Application 12/681,447 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 5-17, 19-21, and 23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "multiple description coding
in a communications system, and in particular to the design of an index
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
L M Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-005188
Application 12/681,447
assignment matrix to be used for multiple description coding." Spec. 1 :3-5.
Of the claims on appeal, claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the
appeal and is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the
dispositive disputed limitation.
1. A method for designing an index assignment matrix for
use in multiple description coding of an information signal, the
method comprising:
selecting a bandwidth for the index assignment matrix in
dependence of transmission condition information relating to a
transmission condition of a communication channel onto which
a description of the information signal can be transmitted,
wherein
the selecting of the bandwidth for the index assignment
matrix is performed in dependence of a root of a polynomial of
which a real and positive root can be rounded or truncated to
correspond to a value of the bandwidth, and wherein the
coefficients of the polynomial are determined in dependence of
the transmission condition information.
REJECTION2 ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-17, 19-21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gavrilescu et al. (US
2005/0027521 Al; Feb. 3, 2005) (hereinafter "Gavrilescu") and Zook (US
6,047,395; Apr. 4, 2000), collectively referred to as the "combination."
2 Appellants amended claims 11-17 and 19-21 in accordance with the
Examiner's suggestion to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the
Final Office Action. See Final Act. 6-7; May 17, 2013 Adv. Act. (entering
amendment).
2
Appeal2014-005188
Application 12/681,447
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
For this appeal, the dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in
finding the combination teaches or suggests "the coefficients of the
polynomial are determined in dependence of the transmission condition
information," as recited in independent claims 1, 9-11, and 23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. We find Appellants' arguments with
respect to the dispositive issue persuasive.
Appellants argue the combination, and Zook in particular, fails to
teach or suggest the disputed, dispositive limitation. App. Br. 7. Appellants
argue Zook instead teaches having coefficients that are related to an error-
locator polynomial or an erasure polynomial, without indicating how such
coefficients are determined. See App. Br. 7 (citing Zook col. 7, 11. 15-20);
see also Reply Br. 3 ("Zook fails to provide any explanation as to how the
polynomial coefficients are determined. Thus, Zook necessarily fails to teach
that the coefficients are determined based on transmission condition
information.").
The Examiner finds Zook teaches this disputed limitation. See Ans. 3.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Zook teaches having a communication
channel (i.e., wiring between a storage device and the host) and using root
coefficients of an erasure polynomial to determine error locations of error
correcting code ("ECC") codewords generated during a read operation on
the channel. See Ans. 3 (citing Zook col. 6, 11. 60-67). The Examiner finds
Zook also teaches the ECC codewords are transmitted to an error corrector
3
Appeal2014-005188
Application 12/681,447
for generating the polynomial and findings the roots. See Ans. 3 (citing
Zook col. 5, 11. 30-45, Fig. 3).
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We agree that the cited
portions of Zook fail to teach or suggest this disputed limitation. See Zook
col. 5, 11. 30-45, col. 6, 11. 60-67, Fig. 3. Specifically, we agree with
Appellants that the cited portions of Zook fail to teach or suggest that the
coefficients are determined based on transmission condition information.
See Zook col. 5, 11. 30-45 (teaching making error corrections to data read
from an disk and correcting errors in codewords), col. 6, 11. 60-67 (teaching
processing a polynomial to determine the error locations and values in a
codeword), Fig. 3 (teaching an erasure polynomial generator for generating
erasure polynomials for correcting errors in codewords). Rather, we find the
cited portions of Zook simply relate to error correction, including
determining and using root coefficients of polynomials in error correction.
See id.
CONCLUSION
Our above findings and reasoning apply to each of the independent
claims on appeal because they each include this disputed limitation. Further,
the remaining claims on appeal-claims 5-8, 12-17, and 19-21-depend
from an independent claim on appeal and incorporate the disputed limitation.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
5-17, 19-21, and 23.
REVERSED
4