Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 2016

12404251 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/404,251 03/13/2009 20991 7590 05/09/2016 THE DIRECTV GROUP, INC PA TENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION CA I LAI I Al09 2230 E. IMPERIAL HIGHWAY EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Feng-Wen Sun 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. PD-970359C 1386 EXAMINER ABELSON, RONALD B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2016 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 Exparte FENG-WEN SUN, LIN-NAN LEE, and KHALID KARIMULLAH Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20. Claims 3and12 have been indicated to be allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Non-Final Act. 18.) Claims 7 and 16 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to transmitting wideband signals via a radio communication system adapted for transmitting narrow-band signals. (Abstract.) Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method comprising: spreading one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals and a wideband carrier frequency signal using orthogonal codes, wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an oj]set; and further spreading the wideband carrier frequency signal into a plurality of data streams, wherein each of the data streams are spread individually, the data streams being recombined prior to transmission, wherein every other bit of the data streams is inverted. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Honkasalo (US 6,064,663; May 16, 2000), Gilhousen (US 5,751,761; May 12, 1998), Sherman (US 6,021,309; Feb. 1, 2000), and Bradish (US 5,830,064; Nov. 3, 1998). 2 Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Honkasalo, Gilhousen, Hunsinger (US 5,465,396; Nov. 7, 1995), and Bradish. 1 ANALYSIS Â§ 103 Rejection-Honkasalo, Gilhousen, Sherman, and Bradish We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 9) that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Honkasalo, Gilhousen, Sherman, and Bradish would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." The Examiner found that the Code-Division Multiple Access (CDMA) link of Sherman for each Frequency-Division Multiple Access (FDMA) channel, in which the CDMA link is defined by a Walsh code, corresponds to the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." (Ans. 8; see also Non-Final Act. 7.) In particular, the Examiner stated that Sherman "was relied on to teach transmitting the narrow-band carrier frequency signals such that each narrow-band carrier frequency signal is non-overlapping in frequency with respect to the other simultaneously transmitted narrow-band carrier frequency signals." (Ans. 20-21 (emphasis omitted).) We do not agree. 1 Both the Examiner and Appellants inadvertently included dependent claims 3 and 12 in the statement of the rejection. (Ans. 5, 12; App. Br. 2.) 3 Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 Sherman relates to communications-satellite network control, in particular, "channel allocation in multiple-satellite communication systems." (Col. 1, 11. 7-11.) Sherman explains that "[e]ach authorized request for access sets up a call 'circuit', the end-to-end connections used by the call" and "[w]hen diversity is not implemented, each 'link' is an individual, time variable CDMA code allocation within an FDMA channel of a particular beam transmitted by a particular satellite." (Col. 23, 11. 27-31.) Sherman also explains that each CDMA link is defined by a particular Walsh code. (Col. 23, 11. 31-33.) Even if the Examiner is correct that Sherman teaches the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned," the Examiner has not identified a feature in Sherman that teaches aligning such narrow-band carrier frequency signals "according to an offset" as required by the claim. 2 On this record, the Examiner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Sherman teaches the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the Sherman reference fails to render obvious the feature whereby the narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset, as presently claimed." (App. Br. 9.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 2, 4---6, 8, and 9 depend from independent 2 The Examiner found that "[t]he offset is the bandwidth from the midpoint of the wideband carrier frequency spectrum . . . to the midpoint of each narrow-band carrier frequency spectrum," but cited Appellants' Figure 3. (Ans. 9.) 4 Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, as well as dependent claims 11, 13-15, and 17-20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. Â§ 103 Rejection-Honkasalo, Gilhousen, Hunsinger, and Bradish We are also persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 14) that the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Honkasalo, Gilhousen, Hunsinger, and Bradish would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." The Examiner found that the digital audio broadcasting (DAB) of Hunsinger, which is broadcast simultaneously with analog FM, corresponds to the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." (See Ans. 15; see also Non-Final Act. 14.) We do not agree. Hunsinger is "directed to broadcasting a digital information waveform in the same band and on the same channel with a conventional analog waveform." (Col. 1, 11. 8-10.) Hunsinger explains that "[a]n in-band, on- channel FM-DAB [digital audio broadcasting] signal simultaneously 5 Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 occupies the same frequency allocation as a conventional analog FM broadcast signal." (Col. 3, 11. 7-9.) Even if the Examiner is correct that Hunsinger teaches the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned," the Examiner has not identified a feature in Hunsinger that teaches aligning such narrow-band carrier frequency signals "according to an offset" as required by the claim. 3 On this record, the Examiner has not sufficiently demonstrated that Hunsinger teaches the limitation "wherein the one or more narrow-band carrier frequency signals are aligned with respect to the wideband carrier frequency signal according to an offset." Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Hunsinger lacks any disclosure or suggestion of spreading any such narrowband signals and wideband signal using orthogonal codes, where the signals are aligned with an offset, and instead merely specifies that the supplemental amplitude modulation of the FM waveform is orthogonal to the initial frequency of the FM waveform." (App. Br. 14.) Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 2, 4---6, 8, and 9 depend from independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4---6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 10, as well as dependent claims 11, 13-15, and 17-20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. 3 Again, the Examiner cited Appellants' Figure 3. (Ans. 16.) 6 Appeal2014-005243 Application 12/404,251 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-11, 13-15, and 17-20 is reversed. REVERSED 7