Ex Parte Wahl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 8, 2014

11569934 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VOLKER WAHL, EDWIN HILKENS, LYDIE DESPERBEN, STEPHANE DEMARCHI, KHALED MAALEJ, and JEAN PHILIPPE SIBERS ____________ Appeal 2012-009257 Application 11/569,934 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred Appeal 2012-009257 Application 11/569,934 2 in finding Dillon (US 6,430,233 B1, issued Aug. 6, 2002) discloses “a base band receiver for providing received data to an application processor for storage in memory, the application processor operable, under instruction from application software code, to provide to the base band receiver data extracted from the memory in interleaved form,” as recited in independent claim 1.1 The Examiner maps the base band receiver to Dillon’s entire Figure 14. See Ans. 9–10. But the Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited teachings of Dillon disclose “a base band receiver for providing received data to an application processor for storage in memory, the application processor operable, under instruction from application software code, to provide to the base band receiver data extracted from the memory in interleaved form,” as required by claim 1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–6, 8–17, 19, and 20 for similar reasons. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 18. The Examiner cites an additional reference Diaz for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on the additional reference for the 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to address the additional arguments. Appeal 2012-009257 Application 11/569,934 3 disputed claim limitation, the Examiner fails to remedy the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED tj