Lantiq Beteiligungs-GmbH & CO.KG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 27, 2021

2020002975 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2021)

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. 15/558,001 09/13/2017 Rainer Strobel LP1971PC00- US_INT200606WO 6871 148528 7590 09/27/2021 2SPL Patent Attorneys Landaubogen 3 Munich, 81373 GERMANY EXAMINER VARNDELL, ROSS E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2666 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2021 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): Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com mail@2spl.de PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RAINER STROBEL and VLADIMIR OKSMAN ________________ Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24‒33, 35, 37‒41, and 43‒47.1 Claims 34 and 36 are objected to as depending on rejected base claim 24, but are otherwise indicated as allowable. See Final Act. 12. Accordingly, these claims are not before us on appeal. Claims 1‒23 and 42 are canceled. See Appeal Br. 11, 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lantiq Deutschland GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to methods for crosstalk avoidance in a data transmission system. Spec. 1:5‒7. Claim 24 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 24. A method for crosstalk avoidance in a data transmission system, the method comprising: separating lines of the data transmission system at least into a first group of one or more lines, a second group of one or more lines, and a third group of one or more lines; controlling transmissions on lines of the first group to occur at different times than transmissions on lines of the second group by: configuring at least a first time interval and a second time interval which does not overlap the first time interval; assigning transmissions on the lines of the first group to the first time interval; assigning transmissions on the lines of the second group to the second time interval; controlling transmissions on lines of the third group to occur at the same time with transmissions on the lines of the first group; and controlling transmissions on the lines of the third group to occur at the same time with transmissions on the lines of the second group. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 24‒29, 31, 33, 35, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Strobel (US 2016/0119025 A1; Apr. 28, 2016), Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 3 Kerpez (US 2016/0028434 A1; Jan. 28, 2016), and Goodson (US 2015/0381233 A1; Dec. 31, 2015). Final Act. 5‒9, 10‒11. Claims 30, 32, 39‒41, and 43‒47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Strobel, Kerpez, Goodson, and Liu2 (US 2004/0096052 A1; May 20, 2004). See Final Act. 9, 11, 12. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 24 because Goodson teaches away from the disclosure of Strobel. See Appeal Br. 4‒9; Reply Br. 1‒8. In particular, Appellant argues Strobel teaches controlling transmissions on lines of a third group to occur at the same times as on lines of a first group and a second group. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant argues Goodson teaches two distinct, mutually exclusive embodiments: a first embodiment illustrated in Figures 2‒4 and a second embodiment illustrated in Figure 5. Id. Appellant argues that in the first embodiment, Goodson teaches assigning transmissions on first and second groups to occur at first and second non- overlapping times. Id. at 6‒7. Appellant argues Goodson teaches that a rule is enforced such that no two vector groups of lines are permitted to transmit at the same time in this first embodiment. Id. (citing Goodson ¶ 19). Appellant argues that the second embodiment includes two operating modes, normal operation interval (NOI) mode and discontinuous operation interval (DOI) mode. Reply Br. 6 (citing Goodson ¶¶ 50‒55). Appellant argues that in NOI mode, all vectoring groups may transmit at the same time. Id. Appellant argues that in DOI mode, no two vectoring groups may transmit at the same time. Id. Appellant argues that it is clear from these 2 The Examiner refers Liu by the inventor’s first name, Dongtai. See Final Act. 9, 11, 12. Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 4 teachings that NOI and DOI modes are mutually exclusive, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined modes and would not have combined Goodson’s NOI mode with Strobel’s teachings. Id. at 6‒7. Appellant argues that considering the teachings of Goodson regarding these two embodiments as a whole, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider Goodson to teach away from the proposed combination because assigning transmission on lines of the third group to occur simultaneously to lines of the first and second group, as taught by Strobel, directly contravenes the rule set forth in Goodson which prohibits such functionality. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Strobel teaches controlling transmission on lines of the third group to occur at the same time as transmissions on lines of the first group and second group. Final Act. 7 (citing Strobel ¶¶ 27‒30). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Goodson teaches configuring a first time interval (for transmission on lines of a first group) and a second time interval (for transmission on lines of a second group), where these two intervals do not overlap. Id. (citing Goodson Figs. 2‒5). Appellant’s argument that Goodson teaches away from the proposed combination is not persuasive because it does not consider the teachings of Goodson as a whole. That is, Goodson teaches a first embodiment, disclosed in Figures 2‒4, wherein vectoring groups generally transmit on non- overlapping time intervals. See Goodson ¶¶ 38‒45. However, Goodson also teaches that in some instances two vectoring groups may be scheduled to transmit simultaneously in this embodiment. See Goodson ¶ 47 (“In some instances, it is possible that two different vectoring group . . . can actually Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 5 have very little crosstalk coupling between them. In some implementations, the two vectoring groups that have little crosstalk between them can be considered as a single combined group (at least as far as the crosstalk avoidance scheme was concerned). As such, the two groups can be scheduled to transmit simultaneously.”). Thus, although Goodson teaches that “in some instances, a rule can be enforced that no two vectoring groups can transmit simultaneously . . . to avoid crosstalk between transmissions on the different vectoring groups” (Goodson ¶ 34), Goodson also contemplates that in this embodiment, certain groups may also be scheduled to transmit simultaneously. Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Goodson does not teach away from the proposed combination. For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 24. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 39 and 44, which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 4‒9. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 25‒ 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, and 45‒47, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments. See id. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 24‒29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38 103 Strobel, Kerpez, Goodson 24‒29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38 30, 32, 39‒ 41, 43‒47 103 Strobel, Kerpez, Goodson, Liu 30, 32, 39‒ 41, 43‒47 Overall Outcome 24‒33, 35, 37‒41, 43‒ 47 Appeal 2020-002975 Application 15/558,001 6 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED