MaxLInear, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 14, 2021

2020001774 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 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.
14/157,090 01/16/2014 Sridhar Ramesh M3921.10007US02 8354
164869 7590 06/14/2021
MB - MAXLINEAR, INC.
1389 Center Drive, Suite 300
Park City, UT 84098
EXAMINER
AHN, SUNG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2021 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):
d@mabr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SRIDHAR RAMESH, CURTIS LING, and XING TAN
____________________

Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–15, 17–20, and 22–32. Appeal
Br. 6. Claims 5, 16 and 21 have been canceled. Appeal Br. 43, 45, 46. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Maxilinear Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent Claims 1 and 20 are illustrative (emphasis, formatting,
and bracketed material added):
1. A method, comprising:
in a first electronic device:
[A.] configuring a spreading matrix based on information associated
with communications between the first electronic device and a
second electronic device; and
[B.] applying frequency spreading to transmit data during
transmission to the second electronic device, wherein:
[B.1.] the transmission comprises use of a plurality of subcarriers;
[B.2.] the frequency spreading comprises generating a plurality of
spreading data vectors based on the transmit data;
[B.3.] each spreading data vector is generated by applying the
spreading matrix to a portion of the transmit data,
[B.3.a.] wherein the transmit data comprises a sequence of
symbols generated by mapping two or more data bits to one
of N symbols,
[B.3.b.] wherein N corresponds to the number of subcarriers in
the plurality of subcarriers, and
[B.3.c.] wherein the portion of the transmit data comprises
N symbols; and
[B.4.] each spreading data vector comprises a plurality of elements,
for assignment to the plurality of subcarriers, for transmission
to the second electronic device.

20. A system, comprising:
[A.] an electronic device that comprises:
[B.] at least one communication circuit operable to receive a signal
received from a second electronic device, wherein the signal is
communicated using a plurality of subcarriers; and
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

3
[C.] at least one processing circuit operable to:
[C.1.] process the received signal to extract receive data
corresponding to a plurality of spreading data vectors; and
[C.2.] apply frequency de-spreading to the receive data, wherein:
[C.2.a.] the frequency de-spreading comprises applying a
spreading matrix to each one of the plurality of spreading
data vectors, to regenerate a portion of an original transmit
data;
[C.2.b.] the original transmit data comprises a sequence of
symbols, and the frequency de-spreading is configured to
account for mapping of more than one bit to at least one
symbol in the portion of an original transmit data; and
[C.2.c.] the spreading matrix is configured based on
information associated with communications between the
electronic device and the second electronic device.

REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Gore US 2003/0099304 A1 May 29, 2003
Zheng US 2007/0202816 A1 Aug. 30, 2007
Moffatt US 2010/0080312 A1 Apr. 1, 2010
Kim US 2010/0177723 A1 July 15, 2010
Soliman US 2010/0202493 A1 Aug. 12, 2010

Additional references cited by PTAB for background information:
Sato US 2002/0140263 Oct. 2, 2002
Ryckaert US 2006/0039448 Feb. 3, 2006
Kotecha US 2008/0101494 May 1, 2008

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

4

REJECTIONS
A. Section 102
The Examiner rejects claims 20, 22, 23, and 32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated over Moffatt.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claims 20 and 32. Appeal
Br. 7, 13–15. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 22 and 23,
Appellant merely references the arguments directed to claim 20. Appeal Br.
13. Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument
for separate patentability. Thus, the rejection of these claims turn on our
decision as to claim 20 (from which claims 22 and 23 depend). Except for
our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 102 rejection of
claims 22 and 23 further herein.
B. Section 103
B.1.
The Examiner states that claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated over Moffatt. Final Act. 5.
However, claims 25 and 26 depend from independent claim 1, and claims 28
and 29 depend from claim 12. Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Moffat and Gore.
Final Act. 9–12. As the Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 15–16),
an anticipation rejection for claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 is not possible and the
rejection of claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 is in fact a 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection
over Moffatt and Gore.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

5
Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 25 (which is also
representative for claim 28). Appeal Br. 16–18. To the extent that
Appellant discusses claims 26 and 29, Appellant merely references the
arguments directed to claims 1 and 20. Appeal Br. 18–19. Such a
referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for “separate
patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turn on our decision as to
claims 1 (from which claims 26 and 29 depend, respectively). Except for
our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of
claims 26, 28, and 29 further herein.
B.2.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14, 15, and 17–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Moffatt
and Gore. Final Act. 9.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claims 1 and 3. Appeal Br.
20–26 and 28–30. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this
rejection of claims 4, 6–12, 14, 15, and 17–19. To the extent that Appellant
discusses claims 4, 6–9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17–19, Appellant merely
references the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 30–32 and 35–36.
Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for
separate patentability. Thus, the rejection of these claims turn on our
decision as to claim 1.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claim 10, Appellant merely
recites the particular language of claim 10 and assert the cited prior art
reference does not disclose the claim limitations. Appeal Br. 34–35.
Without more, this fails to constitute an argument on the merits. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

6
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the
§ 103 rejection of claims 4, 6–12, 14, 15, and 17–19 further herein.
B.3.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Moffatt and Zhang. Final
Act. 15.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 2 and 13, Appellant
merely references the arguments directed to claim 1. Appeal Br. 27–28.
Such a referenced argument (or repeated argument) is not an argument for
“separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turn on our
decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address
the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2 and 13 further herein.
B.4.
The Examiner rejects claims 24, 27, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Moffatt and Soliman. Final
Act. 15–16.
To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 24, 27, and 31,
Appellant merely references the arguments directed to claims 1 and 20.
Appeal Br. 36 and 40–41. Such a referenced argument (or repeated
argument) is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, the
rejection of these claims turn on our decision as to claims 1 and 20. Except
for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection
of claims 24, 27, and 31 further herein.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

7
B.5.
The Examiner rejects claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Moffatt and Kim. Final Act. 16–17.
Appellant argues separate patentability for claim 30. Appeal Br. 37–
39.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
A. Claim 20
A.1.
Examiner determines that Moffatt discloses all of the steps of
claim 20. Final Act. 2–7.
A.2.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because the cited Moffatt “fails to disclose” the step
“[C.2.] apply frequency de-spreading to the receive data, wherein … [C.2.b.]
the original transmit data comprises a sequence of symbols, and the
frequency de-spreading is configured to account for mapping of more than
one bit to at least one symbol in the portion of an original transmit data,” of
claim 20. Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis added).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant raises the same argument in contending
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
[T]he Examiner fails to explain or show where or how Moffatt
teaches (or even suggests), frequency de-spreading that is
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

8
specifically configured “to account for mapping of more than
one bit to at least one symbol in the portion of an original
transmit data,” and in failing to do so, the Examiner effectively
shifts the burden to the Appellant to disprove anticipation, thus
rendering the rejection defective.
Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added).
A.3.
Essentially, Appellant presents a single argument that Moffatt does
not teach mapping more than one bit of the transmission bit stream to one
symbol.
This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim
language. We find the requirement of “mapping to one symbol” is not in
claim 20. Claim 20 is not explicitly so limited, nor does Appellant explain
how claim 20 would be inherently so limited, nor do we find alternative
language that would similarly mandate the argued limitation. The claim
language recites “[C.2.b.] the original transmit data comprises a sequence of
symbols, and the frequency de-spreading is configured to account for
mapping of more than one bit to at least one symbol in the portion of an
original transmit data.” This does not support the argument of Appellant.
The language “mapping of more than one bit to at least one symbol”
includes “mapping of more than one bit to more than one symbol” which
covers any type of mapping and is not limiting in a manner as to provide
support for the argument of Appellant.
Although not required for our decision, even if claim 20 were limited
to mapping of more than one bit to one (and only one) symbol, Moffatt
teaches the use of 16-QAM and 64-QAM modulation for the reasons
discussed below as to claim 1. For example in Moffatt’s paragraphs [0064]
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

9
and [0069], which teach mapping of, respectively, 4 and 6 bits to one
symbol according to the definition of N-QAM modulation when N=16 and
64. Accordingly, the argued concept is taught by Moffatt.
C. Claim 32
C.1.
Examiner determines that Moffatt discloses all of the steps of
dependent claim 32. Final Act. 8.
32. The system of claim 20, wherein the spreading matrix is
configured to distribute power evenly among the plurality of
subcarriers.
C.2.
Appellant argues in the Appeal Brief that:
In particular, the Appellant submits that Moffatt fails to teach any
configuring of a spreading matrix for the specific objective of
distributing power evenly among the plurality of subcarriers. As
an initial matter, the Appellant notes that Moffatt fails to disclose
at these paragraphs any configuring of a spreading matrix.
Nonetheless, even if one assumes for the sake of argument only
that Moffatt discloses such configuring, which the Appellant
does not concede, the Appellant submits that Moffatt fails to
teach any configuring (or anything that may construed as such)
of a spreading matrix to distribute power evenly among the
plurality of subcarriers.
Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added).
C.3.
Examiner answers, regarding claim 32, by referring to the fact that
Moffatt generates subcarriers that are evenly spaced with equal amplitude:
These arguments are acknowledged but are not considered
sufficient to overcome the rejections. First of all, Moffatt
discloses (Fig. 4A-4D, Fig. 6, abstract, paragraph [0010, 0043,
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

10
0044, 0081]) the FFT/IFF matrix operation for generating
subcarriers that are evenly spaced with equal amplitude to
operate with improved signal to noise ratio (SNR) and ideal
sounding. Therefore, Moffatt discloses the all the claimed
limitation of claim 32.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
C.4.
Appellant, in the Reply Brief, argues:
Appellant submits that Moffatt fails to teach any configuring
(or anything that may construed as such) of a spreading matrix
to distribute power evenly among the plurality of subcarriers.
Reply Br. 13 (emphasis added).
C.5.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, “[a]nticipation requires the
presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed
invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The requirement that the prior art elements
themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot be
“treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-
part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their
meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[U]nless a reference discloses within
the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed
and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). For
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

11
a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed
arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings to the extent that as cited by
the Examiner, Figures 4A-4D show the transmit power per subcarrier and
the abstract, as well as numerous other parts of Moffatt, teach the use of
“equal amplitude subcarriers.” Ans. 6. Appellant argues that equal
amplitude of the subcarriers is not related to power distribution among the
subcarrier. Reply Br. 13. We disagree. Power of a wave is correlated with
the wave amplitude such that equal amplitude means equal power.3 As for
Moffatt, this reference teaches “It should be understood that the total
transmit power is equal to the area under the curve of the power spectral
density function.” Moffatt, ¶ 64. Thus, in addition to the correlation of
power and amplitude being known in physics, the reference Moffatt does
also include a teaching that correlates power with amplitude.
However, we agree with Appellant that the language of claim 32
requires a “configuring” of the “spreading matrix to distribute power
evenly,” and we disagree with the Examiner’s reasoning that Moffat’s
paragraphs 10, 43, 44, and 81 are sufficient to show such a “configuring.”

3 Ryckaert (US 2006/0039448): “[0048] Some other parameters are related
to the signal itself. The instantaneous power, directly related to the
amplitude (Ap) of the pulse, is defined as the output power (Pout). . . . .”
Sato (US 2002/0140263): “[0080] A fluctuating waveform of rocking
motion as mentioned above is computed as stated below with reference to
FIG. 17, according to the relationship that the power of a sine wave (the
square of its amplitude) is inversely proportional to the frequency of the
sine wave, namely on the basis of its 1/f spectrum.”
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

12
Reply Br. 13; Ans. 6. Our concern is that nothing in the Examiner’s
reasoning shows “the spreading matrix is configured to distribute power
evenly among the plurality of subcarriers.”
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s arguments that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that
Moffat teaches, the “configuring,” as required by claim 32. Therefore, we
conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the
Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 32 was anticipated in the art at the
time of Appellant’s invention.
C. Claim 25
Claim 25 parallels claim 32. Appellant argues claim 25 on the same
basis as claim 32. Appeal Br. 16–18. We reach the same result, for the
same reasons, as discussed above for claim 32.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 25 was obvious over
the cited art at the time of Appellant’s invention.
D. Claim 1
D.1.
Examiner determines that Moffatt discloses all of the steps of claim 1
except for “[B.3.b.] wherein N corresponds to the number of subcarriers in
the plurality of subcarriers,” which, according to the Examiner, is disclosed
by Gore. Final Act. 9–12.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

13
D.2.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the cited Moffatt/Gore combination “fails to
disclose” above step [B.] of claim 1. Appeal Br. 20. Reply Br. 19–26.
Appellant, focuses the above limitation and contends that Moffat and
Gore fail to disclose or suggest the particular type of “mapping . . . data bits
to . . . symbols” that is claimed:
. . . rather, the claim limitation at issue requires configuring
the despreading function performed at the receiver to account for
a particular manner of performing bit mapping at the
transmitter—namely, configuring frequency de-spreading “to
account for mapping of more than one bit to at least one
symbol in the portion of an original transmit data,” Moffatt
and Gore fail to disclose or suggest any such mapping, let alone
teaching any configuring of despreader or despreading functions
to account for such mapping.
As for the Examiner’s comments about the Appellant’s
specification … [the issue is that] Moffatt and/or Gore fail to
teach performing any mapping of bits onto symbols in the
particular manner recited in claims 1 and 12.
Appeal Br. 26, Reply Br. 25 (emphasis partly added and partly in original).
D.3.
To this specific argument of Appellant, Examiner provides the
following answer:
These arguments are acknowledged but are not considered
sufficient to overcome the rejections. First of all, Moffatt
discloses (paragraph [0003, 0046, 0063]) the various well known
OFDM modulation schemes including the Quadrature
Amplitude Modulation (QAM), Phase Shift Keying (PSK),
Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (QPSK), etc. which uses number
of bits to represent the each symbol (two bits for QPSK, three
bits for 8-PSK, 4/5/6 for 16/32/64-QAM) as disclosed in
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

14
paragraph [0028] of U.S. PGPub. No. 2005/0047322 presented
here as evidential reference. Further, Moffatt (Fig. 6 (112, 132),
Fig. 7 (234), Fig. 9, paragraph [0056, 0070, 0074, 0079, 0081,
0113]) discloses the transmitter for showing the data bits
(multiple bits) that are interleaved and mapped to symbols
(sequence of symbols) and subcarriers which then the frequency
domain spreader spread the subcarriers of input data vectors with
the matrix (comprising matrix vector element) to be transmitted
to the receiver (second electronic device). Gore further discloses
the formation of diversity vector which stream of data bits
mapped N symbols (N-QAM – corresponds to N-QAM of
Applicant’s speciation [0039]) in OFDM communication
system (Fig. 9, paragraph [0015, 0037, 0069, 0070]). Therefore,
combined teachings of Moffatt and Gore disclose the all the
claimed limitation of claims 1 and 12.
Ans. 7–8 (emphasis added).
D.4.
We agree with the Examiner as to Appellant’s argument that Moffatt
and Gore fail to “to account for mapping of more than one bit to at least one
symbol in the portion of an original transmit data.”4 Appeal Br. 26. The
Examiner is correct.
First, note that by definition, a symbol encodes one or generally
several binary digits (bits).5

4 The actual claim language in claim 1 reads “mapping two or more
data bits to one of N symbols” which does not include “at least” and is
treated accordingly. As discussed with respect to claim 20, inclusion of “at
least” is contrary to Appellant’s argument regarding mapping several bits to
a single symbol because “at least one symbol” includes embodiments where
there is a ––mapping of several bits to a several symbols.––
5 See, e.g., Wikipedia, the definition for “Symbol rate” at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_rate. Accessed May 28, 2021.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

15
Second, the Examiner refers to and relies on the N-QAM modulation
scheme such as those disclosed by Moffatt or Gore. Final Act. 12. N-QAM
modulation requires the mapping of Log2 N bits to a single symbol, which
for N= 4, 16, or 64, would be more than one bit.
The system of Moffat shows a 64-QAM or a 16-QAM in Moffatt. See
Moffatt ¶¶ 21, 63, 69. N-QAM modulation is defined to map Log2 N bits of
the transmission bit stream into a single symbol.6 Thus, 16-QAM and 64-
QAM modulation of Moffatt, by definition, teach the argued feature of
“mapping of more than one bit to . . . one symbol in the portion of an
original transmit data.” See Reply Br. 25 (emphasis in original). For
example, the 16-QAM and 64-QAM modulations of Moffatt map,
respectively, 4 and 6 bits to a single symbol as provided by Examiner on
page 7 of the Answer.

6 For the definition of N-QAM and the fact that it maps multiple bits of the
transmission bit stream into a single symbol, see, for example, Kotecha:
“[0026] The data modulator 205 can use any desired modulation scheme to
modulate the data bits into symbols. In one embodiment, the data modulator
205 can use a binary phase shift key (BPSK) scheme to modulate a single bit
onto each symbol. In another embodiment, the data modulator 205 can use a
quadrature phase shift key (QPSK) modulation scheme to modulate two bits
onto each symbol. More generally, the data modulator 205 can use a size
N quadrature amplitude modulation (N-QAM) scheme (such as a 8-
QAM, 16-QAM, or 64-QAM) to encode B bits onto each symbol (where
N=2B)….” See also “[0094] The transmitter then modulates the data bit
stream onto one or more symbols chosen from an available constellation of
symbols to create a data symbol stream. (420) This modulation operation
could involve modulating a single data bit onto each symbol (e.g., using
BPSK modulation) or modulating multiple data bits onto each symbol
(e.g., using QPSK or N-QAM).” Kotecha (emphasis added.)

Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

16
Further Gore uses an N-QAM modulation: “[0033] . . . of typical
modulation modes are circular constellations such as BPSK, QPSK, and
other m-ary PSK, square constellations such as 4QAM, 16QAM, and other
m-ary QAM. . . .” Gore (Emphasis added.) “[0070] Again, the encoded
stream is mapped into symbols (typically N-QAM) . . . .” Gore (emphasis
added). In addition to the cited portions, Gore also provides: “[0097] A
QAM mapper 520 maps the encoded bit stream into N-QAM symbols.
Other typical symbol types can include circular constellations such as BPSK,
QPSK, and other m-ary PSK, square constellations such as 4QAM, 16QAM,
and other m-ary QAM.” Gore (Emphasis added.) The 4QAM and 16QAM
of Gore, respectively, map 2 and 4 bits to a single symbol.
Accordingly, the specific limitation of “wherein the transmit data
comprises a sequence of symbols generated by mapping two or more data
bits to one of N symbols,” is taught by either of Moffatt or Gore.
Appellant’s argument that the specific terminology used in the claim is not
present in the reference is unpersuasive. There is no ipsissimis verbis test
within 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant’s assertion that claim limitations are not
expressly recited in a reference does not evidence lack of prima facie
obviousness, but, rather, “begs the substantive question of whether there are
facial differences to be bridged.” See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). A reference does not have to satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test to
disclose a claimed element, therefore Appellant’s demand for such an
exacting match is not persuasive of error. See In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331,
1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

17
E. Claim 3
E.1.
Examiner determines that Moffatt/Gore combination renders obvious
the steps of dependent claim 3. Final Act. 12.
3. The method of claim, comprising setting a size of the
portion of the transmit data to which the spreading matrix is
applied based on number of the plurality of subcarriers.
To provide context for the phrase “size of the portion of the
transmitted data” reference is made to the single paragraph in the
specification which pertains to “size”:
The frequency spreader 340 may then apply frequency
spreading to the modulation symbols. In this regard, frequency
spreading may comprise grouping data input (i.e.
mapping/modulation symbols) into groups of a certain size--
i.e. each group has a particular number of the input symbols. The
size of a group may be determined based on first spreading
factor, which may be set based on number of subcarrier[s] for
example. The disclosure is not so limited, however, and other
criteria may be used in determining the first spreading factor (i.e.,
setting the number of input symbols in each group). Each group
may then be multiplied by a particular spreading matrix, which
may be selected adaptively to provide spreading that meets
particular criteria. The criteria used in configuring and/or setting
the spreading matrix may be based on power, channel noise,
desired performance (e.g., correctness vs. throughput), etc. The
spreading matrix may be configured or selected, for example,
such that power may be evenly distributed among the subcarriers.
The spreading matrix may be a square matrix--i.e. having the
same number of rows and columns (e.g., set based on the number
of subcarriers). Nonetheless, the disclosure is not so limited, and
non-square matrices may be used as well. The spreading matrix
may be pre-programmed into the electronic device 300, and
remains unchanged thereafter. Alternatively, the spreading
matrix may be dynamically selected (e.g., from a local or remote
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

18
database) when frequency spreading is activated or enabled; or
may be dynamically configured (e.g., based on characteristics of
the communication, such as number of subcarriers, used
frequencies, etc.).
Spec. 38 (emphasis added).
E.2.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “[N]owhere in these paragraphs [0070, 0074,
0079, 0081, 0085, 0113] or anywhere else does Moffatt (or Gore) teach or
suggest any such setting of the portion of the transmit data in this particular
manner.” Appeal Br. 30.
E.3.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument. Moffatt teaches “if the IFFT
circuit 140 has an input with a 64 sample signal in the frequency domain, it
would give a 64 sample signal in the time domain as a matrix operation.”
Moffat 79. Moffat also teaches “64-complex sinusoids in the frequency
domain.” Moffat 113. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that
Moffat is therefore suggestive of “setting a size of the portion of the transmit
data to which the spreading matrix is applied based on number of the
plurality of subcarriers.”
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

19
F. Claim 30
F.1.
Examiner determines that Moffatt and Kim render obvious the steps
of dependent claim 30. Final Act. 16–17.
30. The system of claim 20, wherein processing the received signal
comprises:
generating channel related information based on channel
estimation; and
applying one or more adjustments during the processing based
on the channel related information.
The Examiner’s rejection relies on paragraphs 11, 57, and 119 of Moffatt
and paragraph 88 of Kim. Final Act. 16–17.
F.2.
As to claim 30, Appellant argues:
. . . In particular, the Examiner fails to explain where and how
Moffatt and Kim (individually or in combination) teach or
disclose any “channel related information” or any generating
thereof on channel estimation. All that Moffatt discloses in the
paragraphs the Examiner cites is performing channel
estimation and compensation. However, Moffatt does not
teach that such functions entail generating any channel
related information.
Further, the Examiner fails to explain where and how Moffatt
and Kim (individually or in combination) teach or disclose any
“applying one or more adjustments during the processing
based on the channel related information.” In this regard, even
if one assumes for the sake of argument only that Moffatt and
Kim disclose generating such channel related information, which
the Appellant does not concede, the Appellant submits that
neither Moffatt nor Kim teaches performing anything that
may be construed as applying adjustments during the
processing based on any such channel related information.
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

20
Appeal Br. 39, Reply Br. 41, (emphasis added).
F.3.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument. Moffatt teaches “[a] channel
estimate circuit is operative for measuring fluctuations within a flat-top
spectrum of the received OFDM communications signal corresponding to
the preamble to reflect the frequency response of the communications
channel.” Moffat 11 (emphasis added). Moffat also teaches:
The receiver, such as shown in FIG. 7 and also described
relative to FIG. 18, uses the short sync symbols in the preamble
to detect the arrival of the packet, recover the timing and perform
coarse and fine frequency offset estimation (fine estimation is
done using the long sync symbols). The received OFDM
waveform is then converted to the frequency domain (using an
FFT). Channel estimation and compensation is then performed
using the long sync symbols 264 in the preamble.
Moffat 119 (emphasis added). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we
determine that Moffat is therefore suggestive of “generating channel related
information based on channel estimation” and “applying one or more
adjustments during the processing based on the channel related
information.”
CONCLUSION
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–4, 6–15, 17–19, 24,
26, 27, 29, and 30–31 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–15, 17–19, 24, 26, 27, 29,
and 30–31 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
Appellant has shown that the Examiner does err in rejecting claims 25
and 28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

21
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 and 28 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 20, 22, and 23 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 22, and 23 as being anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Appellant has shown that the Examiner does err in rejecting claim
32 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
20, 22, 23,
32
102(b) Moffatt 20, 22, 23 32
1, 3, 4, 6–
12, 14, 15,
17–19, 25,
26, 28, 297
103(a) Moffatt, Gore 1, 3, 4, 6–
12, 14, 15,
17–19, 26,
29
25, 28
2, 13 103(a) Moffatt, Zhang 2, 13
24, 27, 31 103(a) Moffatt, Soliman 24, 27, 31
30 103(a) Moffatt, Kim 30

7 Claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 depend from independent claims 1 and 12. The
anticipation rejection for claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 is treated as a 35 U.S.C.
103(a) rejection over Moffatt and Gore. Appeal Br. 16.

Appeal 2020-001774
Application 14/157,090

22
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome

1–4, 6–15,
17–20, 22–
24, 26, 27,
29–31
25, 28, 32

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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 IN PART