Ex Parte Rogoza

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 14, 2017

12193314 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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. 12/193,314 08/18/2008 William C. Rogoza RTN-356AUS (06E079) 4585 33164 7590 03/16/2017 RAYTHEON COMPANY C/O DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP 354A TURNPIKE STREET SUITE 301A CANTON, MA 02021 EXAMINER HUGHES, EBONIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2694 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2017 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@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM C. ROGOZA Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Appellant’s invention relates to “low overhead MSK decoding by demodulating MSK signals directly from an IF signal without converting to base-band, i.e., eliminating processing of in phase and quadrature channel data.” Spec. 13; accord Spec. 121. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: receiving a signal having a intermediate frequency (IF); sampling the IF signal at a selected sampling frequency; correlating, using a computer processor, the sampled IF signal with a preamble signal; determining a correlation peak for the correlated signals; identifying chips of the preamble signal based upon the correlation peak; and decoding the IF signal to obtain and store information encoded in the IF signal, wherein the signal is demodulated directly in the time domain without inphase and quadrature components. 15. A method comprising: performing MSK demodulation of a signal directly from an IF signal without conversion to base-band signals, wherein the signal is demodulated directly in the time domain without inphase and quadrature components. THE REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of Mill (US 2002/0075974 Al; June 20, 2002). Claims 3—8, 11—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of various combination of Mill, Martin (US 7,246,237 B2; July 17, 2007), Rasmussen (US 2008/0101442 Al; May 1, 2008), Mellon (US 4,897,659; Jan. 30, 1990), Na et al. (US 2007/0297540 Al; Dec. 2 Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 27, 2007), Crawford (US 2004/0037366 Al; Feb. 26, 2004), Jung-Bae Park et al., A New Address Decoder Using Digitial MSK Demodulation Technique for the HD-DVD System, IEEE 0-7803-7379-0/02 (2002), and Phillips (US 5,712,628; Jan. 27, 1998). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Independent Claim 1 Citing Mill’s Figure 3 and related disclosures, the Examiner finds Mill teaches a mixer receiving a 2.4 GHz RF signal and a signal from a local oscillator. Non-final Act. 3 (citing Mill Fig. 3, Tflf 29, 30, 32, 36, 38). The Examiner finds Mill teaches that the mixer generates a frequency-shift keyed modulated heterodyne signal corresponding to the RF signal but at a chosen lower intermediate frequency (IF). Id. Further, the Examiner finds Mill teaches that the IF signal is passed to an analog frequency discriminator to generate a frequency deviation. Id. The Examiner also finds Mill teaches that the frequency deviation voltage is sampled and digitized in an analogue- to-digital converter, with the digitized samples then supplied to a correlator. Id. 3 Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 Appellant contends the cited portions of Mill do not teach sampling the IF signal and correlating the sampled IF signal with a preamble signal. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Mill teaches passing an IF signal to a frequency discriminator that generates an output voltage representative of the deviation of the FSK modulated signal to its center frequency and that it is the frequency deviation signal, not the IF signal, that is correlated with a preamble signal. Reply Br. 2 (citing Mill H 29—30). Appellant argues “it is not reasonable to assert that. . . correlating a frequency deviation signal with a preamble signal, as taught by Mill, teaches or suggests ‘correlating, using a computer processor, the sampled IF signal with a preamble signal.’” Reply Br. 3. We disagree with Appellant. Mill teaches deriving a waveform representing a received data signal (Mill 114—15) and “correlating [a] reference signal waveform with [the derived] waveform representing [the] data signal” (Mill 116). Using the frequency deviation signal to represent the data signal, Mill’s invention “exploits the fact that a frequency- discriminated 1010 preamble of a Bluetooth signal with its Guassian-filtered baseband modulation is very similar in waveform to a sinusoidal (specifically cosine) wave.” Mill 118; accord Mill 128. Similarly, in correlating the sampled IF signal with a preamble signal, Appellant’s invention exploits the “good auto-correlation characteristics” of the Mode 5 preamble. Spec. H 23 (“Because the Mode 5 preamble was selected to have good auto-correlation characteristics, one can use this property in selecting the sample point.”) 24); see also Spec. 121 (“While exemplary embodiments are shown and escribed in conjunction with . . . Mode 5 IFF applications, which have particular characteristics, frequencies, etc., it is 4 Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 understood that the invention is applicable to waveform decoding applications in general for which it is desirable to demodulat[e] MSK signals directly from the IF signal without converting to base-band.”). While Appellant is correct that Mill teaches correlating a frequency deviation signal with a preamble signal, the frequency deviation signal represents the IF signal after frequency discrimination, and we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would have understood correlating the sampled frequency deviation signal with a preamble signal to teach or at least suggest (or represent) correlating the sampled IF signal to a preamble signal. Accordingly, having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 in light of each of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we disagree with Appellant and sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2—14 which Appellant does not substantively address beyond the arguments advanced for claim 1. We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and reasons consistent with the above. Independent Claim 15 In the rejection of claim 15, the Examiner cites Park as teaching MSK demodulation using a peak detection algorithm and Mill as teaching demodulation of an IF signal directly in the time domain without conversion to base-band signals without inphase and quadrature components. Non-final Act. 9 (citing Park Fig. 2, p. 114; Mill 138); Ans. 7—8. Appellant argues Park teaches using inphase and quatrature-phase components of MSK modulation and MSK decoding scheme components. App. Br. 12—14. 5 Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 Contrary to Appellant’s arguments regarding Park’s disclosures of inphase and quadrature-phase components, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 7—8), Park teaches inphase and quatrature-phase components of “[t]he well- known form of. . . MSK modulation.” Park p. 115. Park teaches a “proposed new digital MSK demodulator” that does not need “in- phase/quatrature component decisions” or other kinds of complex function blocks. Park p. 115. Moreover, the Examiner cites Mill as teaching demodulation without inphase and quadrature components (see Non-final Act. 9; Ans. 7—9), and Appellant does not substantively rebut the Examiner’s findings. Appellant additionally argues “Applicant has no idea how or why the system of Mill could be or would be combined with the bit clock/peak detection system of Park” and “the Examiner has impermissibly used hindsight by simply relying on Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap to identify claim features in the prior art and combine them in an attempt to arrive at the claimed invention.” App. Br. 15. We disagree. As explained by the Examiner, both Mill and Park relate to the same field as Appellant’s invention—signal processing. See Ans. 9. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that both Mill and Park teach peak detection systems that use a waveform of a modulated carrier wave (MSK or FSK). Ans. 9—10. More particularly, the Examiner finds, and we agree “Park and Mill each dictate a correlation between an IF signal and a reference waveform to determine a synchronization point (i.e. starting location of a bit)” such that a person of ordinary skill would have understood to combine the teachings to arrive at the invention of claim 15. Id. 6 Appeal 2014-001298 Application 12/193,314 Appellant’s Reply does not address the Examiner’s additional findings and explanation as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. Having considered the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 in light of each of Appellant’s arguments and the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded of error and sustain the rejection of claim 15, as well as the rejections of dependent claims 16—18, which Appellant does not substantively address beyond the arguments addressed above. We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and reasons consistent with the above. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18. 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 7