Ex Parte Tong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 2012

10753546 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WEN TONG, CATHERINE LERETAILLE, and STEPHANE GOSNE ____________ Appeal 2010-004321 Application 10/753,546 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004321 Application 10/753,546 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 14-46 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-13 were cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary Claim 14 follows: 14. A method of interleaving and rate matching parallel concatenated convolutional coded data by deletion of coded data bits, the coded data bits comprising systematic bits and parity bits, including the steps of interleaving the systematic bits separately from the parity bits, and deleting parity bits from the interleaved parity bits to provide the rate matching. The Examiner rejected claims 14-46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gelblum (U.S. Patent No. 6,330,277) in view of AAPA (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) (Ans. 3-9). FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer (Ans. 3, et seq.). ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gelblum and the AAPA teaches or suggests “the steps of interleaving the systematic bits separately from the parity bits, and deleting parity bits from the interleaved Appeal 2010-004321 Application 10/753,546 3 parity bits to provide the rate matching,” as recited in independent claim 14, and as similarly recited in independent claims 16, 22, 27, 30, 32, 37, 42, and 44-46? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 14-46. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 3-23) in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight and address certain findings and arguments below. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 14 as obvious because Gelblum “fails to delete parity bits from the interleaved parity bits” (App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted)). In support of their contention, Appellants argue that “Gelblum fails to disclose, teach or suggest that rate matching is performed after channel interleaving” (id.). Appellants further argue that “the alleged ‘prior art’ fails to disclose enablement for its system” (id. at 19). The Examiner found, however, that the AAPA teaches “that the channel interleaver may either precede or follow the rate matching function” (Ans. 10). The Examiner further found that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace the puncturing/interleaving devices of Gelblum with the interleaving/puncturing devices of Applicant’s admitted prior art” (id.). We agree with the Examiner. The AAPA indicates that “the channel interleaver either precedes Appeal 2010-004321 Application 10/753,546 4 or follows a rate matching function which serves to match various data rates to the radio frame rate, and which typically involves puncturing (omission) or repetition of data symbols” (Spec. p. 1, l. 30 – p. 2, l. 3). Moreover, Gelblum provides a description of deleting and interleaving parity bits that is more than sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the system recited in claim 14. In particular, Gelblum teaches that “transmitters remove parity bits in a process of puncturing” (col. 2, ll. 56- 57). Gelblum also teaches that “two interleavers are used, one interleaver is for information bits and the second one is for parity bits” (col. 4, ll. 17-19). Thus, the claim limitation of deleting parity bits from interleaved parity bits is a combination of familiar elements from Gelblum and the AAPA that yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 14. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims on appeal (i.e., claims 15-46) because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability and different arguments for them (See App. Br. 20-21). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 14-46 as obvious. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb