MaxLInear, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 14, 20212020001774 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation