Doc code: RCEX
`Doc description: Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
`
`PTO/SB130EFS (07-09)
`Approved for use through 07/3112012. 0MB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid 0MB control number.
`
`REQUEST FOR CONTINUED EXAMINATION(RCE)TRANSMITTAL
`(Submitted Only via EFS-Web)
`I 2009-09-30
`
`Application
`Number
`First Named
`Inventor
`
`12570343
`
`Filing
`Date
`
`I
`
`C. Earl Woolfork
`
`Docket Number
`(if applicable)
`Examiner
`Name
`
`1028-4
`
`AndrewC. Flanders
`
`I Art
`Unit
`
`I 2614
`
`This is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 of the above-identified application.
`Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice under 37 CFR 1.114 does not apply to any utility or plant application filed prior to June 8,
`1995, or to any design application. The Instruction Sheet for this form is located at WWW.USPTO.GOV
`
`SUBMISSION REQUIRED UNDER 37 CFR 1.114
`
`Note: If the RCE is proper, any previously filed unentered amendments and amendments enclosed with the RCE will be entered in the order
`in which they were filed unless applicant instructs otherwise. If applicant does not wish to have any previously filed unentered amendment(s)
`entered, applicant must request non-entry of such amendment(s).
`D Previously submitted. If a final Office action is outstanding, any amendments filed after the final Office action may be considered as a
`submission even if this box is not checked.
`
`D Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed on
`
`D Other
`
`lg] Enclosed
`
`lg] Amendment/Reply
`
`lg] Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
`
`D Affidavit(s)/ Declaration(s)
`
`D Other
`
`D Suspension of action on the above-identified application is requested under 37 CFR 1.103( c) for a period of months
`(Period of suspension shall not exceed 3 months; Fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) required)
`
`MISCELLANEOUS
`
`D Other
`
`The RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.17(e) is required by 37 CFR 1.114 when the RCE is filed.
`lg] The Director is hereby authorized to charge any underpayment of fees, or credit any overpayments, to
`Deposit Account No
`504576
`
`SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT REQUIRED
`
`FEES
`
`lg] Patent Practitioner Signature
`D Applicant Signature
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Doc code: RCEX
`Doc description: Request for Continued Examination (RCE)
`
`PTO/SB130EFS (07-09)
`Approved for use through 07/3112012. 0MB 0651-0031
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid 0MB control number.
`
`Signature of Registered U.S. Patent Practitioner
`
`Signature
`
`/Megan Lyman/
`
`Name
`
`Megan Lyman
`
`Date (YYYY-MM-DD} 2010-08-04
`
`Registration Number
`
`57054
`
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.114. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to
`file (and by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is
`estimated to take 12 minutes to complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time
`will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for
`reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce,
`P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
`If you need assistance in completing the form, ca/11-800-PT0-9199 and select option 2.
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Privacy Act Statement
`
`The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission of the
`attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please be
`advised that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the information
`solicited is voluntary; and (3} the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent. If you do not furnish the requested
`information, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to process and/or examine your submission, which may
`result in termination of proceedings or abandonment of the application or expiration of the patent.
`
`The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of Information
`Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Records from this system of records may be disclosed to the
`Department of Justice to determine whether the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of these records.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a
`court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement
`negotiations.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a
`request involving an individual, to whom the record pertains, when the individual has requested assistance from the
`Member with respect to the subject matter of the record.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having need
`for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply with the
`requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m).
`
`A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of records
`may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization,
`pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
`
`A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes of
`National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 218(c)).
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services,
`or his/her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to
`recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and
`2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this
`purpose, and any other relevant (i.e., GSA or Commerce} directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make
`determinations about individuals.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public after either publication of
`the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record may
`be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record was filed in an
`application which became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which application is
`referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspections or an issued patent.
`
`9.
`
`A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, or local law
`enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation.
`
`EFS - Web 2.1.15
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION AND RESPONSE TO THE FINAL
`REJECTION DATED 06/07/10
`
`RESPONSE TO REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1 -11, 13-26 UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`A finding of obviousness requires that "the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would
`
`have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which the subject matter pertain." 35 U.S.C. § 103( a). In KSR Int 'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court stated that
`
`the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`control an obviousness inquiry: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claimed invention; (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the art; and ( 4) objective evidence of nonboviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734, 82
`
`USPQ2d at 1388 (quoting Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 14 USPQ at 467).
`
`The KSR Court rejected a rigid application of the "teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation [TSM]" test previously applied by the Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 USPQ2d at 1395. However, the Supreme Court
`
`affirmed that it is "important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`
`invention does ... because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building blocks
`
`long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be combinations
`
`of what, in some sense, is already known." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
`
`Once the Graham factors have been addressed, the Examiner may apply the TSM test,
`
`asking whether (1) a teaching, suggestion or motivation exists in the prior art to combine
`
`the references cited, and (2) one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success. See USPTO Guidelines at 57534.
`
`Further, in order to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all
`
`the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d
`
`981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). Additionally, in considering a prior art reference, the
`
`reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would
`
`lead away from the claimed invention. WL. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock. Inc., 721
`
`F.2d 1540,220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Moreover,
`
`1
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`it is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their
`
`combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,743,218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
`
`Indeed, "an applicant may rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the
`
`prior art teaches away from the claimed invention in any material respect. " In re
`
`Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, a prior art reference is only appropriate where the "invention as a
`
`whole would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field." In re Kumar, 418 F.3d
`
`1361, 76 USPQ2d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Claims 1-11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 rejected as unpatentable over Altstatt in view
`
`of Li
`
`The obviousness rejection is that the digital wireless communication of Li could
`
`be replaced by the FM modulation communication taught in Altstatt. Li is cited for
`
`teaching a device for use in portable implementations. It is stated that doing so is the
`
`substitution of one known element (i.e., the digital CDMA transmitter/receiver) for
`
`another (i.e., analog FM transmitter) to obtain predictable results. The Applicant
`
`respectfully disagrees.
`
`Altstatt does not disclose a direct one-to-one digital transmitter-to-headphone
`
`communication link. Thus, Altstatt cannot realize the benefits of such a digital link as
`
`asserted (Examiner Office Action Mailed 08-09-2005, page 6: "However the system of
`
`Altstatt is an analog transmission system that, in operation, lacks the benefits of a
`
`digitally encoded and transmitted audio signal" and Office Action Mailed 05-17-2006,
`
`page 6 and Office Action Mailed 10-02-2006, page 10: "However, the system of Altstatt
`
`an analog transmission system that, operation lacks the benefits digitally encoded and
`
`transmitted audio signal."). Additionally, Li clearly discloses a cellular communication
`
`system (Li col. 1 lns. 57 - 63 "CDMA digital cellular communications system ... ," col.
`
`6 lns. 55 - 62 "IMT 2000 ... IS95 ... CDMA 2000). IMT 2000, IS95 and CDMA 2000
`
`are all cellular (i.e., cell phone) standards and each requires the centralized control of a
`
`base station for operation. Li's centralized control base station system does not disclose a
`
`direct one-to-one transmitter-to-headphone communication link.
`
`2
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`Applying "the digital CDMA wireless communication of Li to replace the FM
`
`modulation communication as taught by Alstatt," as stated on page 6 of the Final
`
`Rejection (FRJ) mailed 06/07/2010, requires the centralized control of the cellular base
`
`station taught by Li (Li col. 7 lns. 9 - 17 "The exchange or the service-providing unit of
`
`the mobile net can store various multichannel sounds needed by users, e.g. a great
`
`amount of MP3 music data. On request of users, the exchange or the service-providing
`
`unit of the mobile net sends the suitable data to the wideband CDMA base station, by
`
`which the multichannel data, e.g. MP3 music data, is transmitted to the multichannel
`
`mobile equipment through the radio interface of the wideband CDMA). Li teaches the
`
`cellular base station approach for "bi-directional" sound communication and interference
`
`suppression (Li col. 1 lns. 57 - 63 "CDMA digital cellular communications system can,
`
`with large system capacity only restricted by interference ... providing bi-directional ...
`
`sound."). As a result, the Altstatt/Li combination stated in the FRJ requires the cellular
`
`base station to meet the interference mitigation claim language "virtually free from
`
`interference from device transmitted signals operating in the portable wireless digital
`
`audio system spectrum" as found in Claims 3-5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21 and 23.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, page 5 of the FRJ suggests the Altstatt/Li combination
`
`obviates the invention by "Replacing the FM transmitter/receiver implementation of
`
`Alstatt to use the digital CDMA communication,". Page 6 of the FRJ continues with
`
`"sending unit 100"/receiving unit 200 representing the invention's digital audio
`
`transmitter/receiver respectively. This Altstatt/Li combination fails to obviate the
`
`invention based on at least the following. The following explanation is applicable not
`
`only to Claim 1, but to the other remaining Claims (2-11, and 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23) that
`
`stand rejected under the Altstatt/Li combination.
`
`Moreover, for Li's sending unit 100 to communicate with receiving unit 200
`
`without interference anomalies, the centralized control of a base station is required (Li
`
`col. 1 lns. 57 - 63, col. 6 lns. 55 - 62 and Li col. 7 lns. 9 - 17 as referenced above),
`
`especially when there exists at least one other "sending unit 100" in the vicinity. The
`
`Altstatt/Li combination does not suggest a portable audio system that includes a mobile
`
`transmitter and mobile receiver with a distributed architecture to one of ordinary skill.
`
`3
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`Indeed there is no motivation for one of ordinary skill to combine Altstatt and Li as the
`
`end product would not suggest the present invention.
`
`To further support this position, the Examiner is referred to the underlined portion
`
`of Exhibit I (herein attached) "From WPANs to Personal Networks Technologies and
`
`Applications" where it is stated: "A wireless network can be distributed or centralized.
`
`Distributed networks are those where each device accesses the medium individually and
`
`transmits the data without any central control . . . . Centralized network architecture has
`
`one network element, which controls the communication of various devices." The claim
`
`language "configured for independent CDMA communication operation" (as seen in
`
`Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 15, 21, and 23) reflects the distributed architecture and is supported by
`
`the specification of 10/027,391 application in paragraph 0016. ("This ... (CDMA) may
`
`be used to provide each user independent operation." (as well as other portions of the
`
`specification)).
`
`Within the invention, the task of each receiver, among other things, is to mitigate
`
`interference in the vicinity in order to receive the correct transmission successfully.
`
`Thus, the direct conversion receiver (DCR) disclosed in the present invention (as recited
`
`in Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23) utilizes, among other things, "timing and
`
`synchronization to capture the correct bit sequence embedded in the received spread
`
`spectrum signal" (Parent Application 10/027,391 paragraph 0015). Further support for
`
`this language is contained in paragraph 0016 of the 10/027,391 application, where it
`
`states: "Other code words from wireless digital audio systems 10 may appear as noise to
`
`a particular audio receiver 50. This may also be true for other device transmitted signals
`
`operating in the wireless digital audio system 10 spectrum." Moreover, Patent 7,412,294
`
`col. 3 lns. 32-34 state: "The battery powered transmitter 20 sends the audio music
`
`information to the battery powered receiver 50 in digital packet format."
`
`When packets are communicated over a wireless link it may be referred to as
`
`packet radio. The underlined section of the text "Wireless Communications Principles &
`
`Practice" has been provided for clarification. (please see Exhibit II:" ... called packet
`
`radio when used over a wireless link . . . . This benefit is valuable for the case of mobile
`
`services where the available bandwidth is limited. The packet radio approach supports
`
`intelligent protocols for data flow control and retransmission, which can provide highly
`
`4
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`reliable transfer in degraded channel conditions."). While other code words and/or other
`
`device transmitted signals are in the vicinity they can create associated noise channel
`
`conditions at the receiver that may prevent the capture of the packet with the correct bit
`
`sequence. Based on the above disclosures, it is clear that both intended and unintended
`
`spread spectrum packet signals can appear at the receiver, but only the packet with the
`
`correct bit sequence is captured by the DCR. Moreover, there exists several data delivery
`
`types (for clarification, please see section 16.2.1, of the book from Vijay Garg entitled
`
`Wireless Communications and Networking, (relative to the CDMA2000 cellular
`
`communication taught by Li) accessible on the following Google books website:
`
`http://books.google.com/books?id=UE2wEc9NfB8C&pg=PA544&lpg=PA544&dq=cdm
`
`a2000+isdn&source=bl&ots=pB26eq6oLc&sig=nzleT7D4Q_P(cid:173)
`
`KFMduSkb9b5015s&hl=en&ei=lZw8TKzcHZL4swOgOuDaCg&sa= X&oi=book _result
`
`&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=OCBoQ6AEw AQ#v=onepage&q=cdma2000%20isdn&f=fa
`
`lse).
`
`That source states: "End user data-bearing services. Services that deliver any
`
`form of data on behalf of the mobile end user, including packet data ( e.g., IP service),
`
`circuit switched data services (e.g., B-ISDN emulation services), and SMS. Packet data
`
`services conform to industry standard connection-oriented and connectionless packet data
`
`including IP-based protocols ( e.g., transmission control protocol (TCP) and user data
`
`protocol (UDP) and OSI connectionless interworking protocol (CLIP)). Circuit-switched
`
`data services that emulate international standards-defined, connection-oriented services
`
`such as asynchronous (async) dial-up access, fax, V.120 rate-adapted ISDN, and B-ISDN
`
`services." Of these data delivery types available, the Altstatt/Li combination does not
`
`disclose or suggest a digital packet format for audio information as is included in the
`
`claim language and does not obviate the invention. The digital packet claim language is
`
`recited in Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23.
`
`Moreover, within the scope of the invention (based on paragraphs 0015 and 0016
`
`of the 10/027,391 application, as well as Patent 7,412,294 column 3 lines 32-34), the
`
`DCR accounts for, among other things, (1) relevant timing metrics to capture the packet
`
`with the correct bit sequence embedded in the received spread spectrum signal within a
`
`in-motion transmitter, in-motion receiver, distributed architecture and (2) relevant
`
`5
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`synchronization metrics to capture the packet with the correct bit sequence embedded in
`
`the received spread spectrum signal within a in-motion transmitter, in-motion receiver,
`
`distributed architecture. Claims 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 21, and 23 recite the "direct
`
`conversion module configured to capture packets .... " It should be noted that
`
`synchronization includes forms of acquisition and tracking (please reference underlined
`
`section of Exhibit III taken from "Digital Communications Techniques Signal Design and
`
`Detection"). As a result, timing and synchronization, to capture the intended signal
`
`components, has been disclosed and broadly covers all types of timing and
`
`synchronization distributed architecture techniques to perform such a task.
`
`Regarding Claim 13, the Altstatt/Li combination does not disclose a direct
`
`conversion receiver (DCR) as stated on page 9 in the FRJ where Li's element "(202)" is
`
`referenced. There is no evidence that Li's item 202 ("wideband CDMA demodulator") is
`
`a DCR. The DCR disclosed in the present invention, among other things, performs direct
`
`down conversion from radio frequency (RF) to baseband ( or very near baseband), thus,
`
`omitting intermediate frequency (IF) down conversion components that are often used.
`
`The invention utilizes the DCR for, among other things, down conversion from RF-to(cid:173)
`
`baseband ( or very near baseband), eliminating unnecessary IF components, which
`
`reduces the size and power consumption of the module. The Altstatt/Li combination does
`
`not disclose a DCR nor does it suggest the use of a DCR within the invention. Because
`
`one of ordinary skill would not look to Alstatt and Li to create the present invention with
`
`any reasonable expectation of success, the obviousness rejection should be removed.
`
`In addition, the use of the DCR in the invention, suppresses aliasing noise effects
`
`by use of the anti-aliasing filters (typically low pass filters or some version thereof)
`
`located within the DCR, thus, aiding to preserve the fidelity of the transmitted high
`
`quality audio signal. The Altstatt/Li combination does not teach or suggest a DCR, thus,
`
`cannot realize the benefits of the claim language "a direct conversion module configured
`
`to capture the packet with the correct bit sequence embedded in the received spread
`
`spectrum signal." (contained in Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23). Neither Li,
`
`Altstatt, Lindemann (Lindemann discloses in paragraph 0057 "In the RF receiver
`
`embodiment of FIG. 3, ... , The RF Downconverter 302 modulates the RF signal, using a
`
`sinusoid generated by the RF VCO 310, down to IF frequency. The IF signal is further
`
`6
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`down modulated by the IF Demodulator 303. The output of the IF Demodulator is a
`
`complex signal consisting ofl and Q--real, imaginary--running at the Chip Rate") nor any
`
`combination of the three teach, suggest, or disclose the DCR of the present invention.
`
`Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23 should be in allowance on the presence of the
`
`DCR alone.
`
`Finally, intersymbol interference (ISI) distorts the audio signal content, causing a
`
`major obstacle to the transmission of high data rate audio from an in-motion transmitter
`
`to an in-motion receiver. Referring to the underlined sections of the Exhibit IV text
`
`"Adaptive Filter Theory," Second Edition, by Simon Haykin, ISI "is caused by dispersion
`
`in the transmit filter, the transmission medium, and the receive filter ... we usually find
`
`that intersymbol interference is the chief determining factor in the design of high-data
`
`rate transmission systems ... intersymbol interference, if left unchecked, can result in
`
`erroneous decisions when the sampled signal at the channel output is compared with
`
`some preassigned threshold by means of a decision device."
`
`Within the present invention, both the digital audio transmitter and digital audio
`
`receiver may be in motion (see Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, and 23), thus, the
`
`relative position and velocity of both the transmitter and receiver (both in-motion
`
`transmitter and in-motion receiver present spatial and temporal variations) will be
`
`constantly changing (e.g., a person running with the wireless digital audio system).
`
`Because ISI results when the in-motion digital audio transmitter attempts to communicate
`
`high symbol rate audio to the in-motion digital audio receiver, ISI must be suppressed.
`
`The present invention mitigates ISI to maintain fidelity of the high data rate audio signal
`
`while the in-motion transmitter is in communication with the in-motion receiver. The ISI
`
`mitigation is performed by, among other things, the claimed encoder ("an encoder with
`
`means to encode said original audio signal representation to reduce intersymbol
`
`interference") and decoder ("a decoder with means to decode the applied reduced
`
`intersymbol interference coding of said original audio signal representation") (Claims 3,
`
`5, 6, 7,9-11, 13, and 21). The Altstatt/Li combination does not disclose or suggest an
`
`encoder/decoder pair for the reduction ofISI within an in-motion transmitter and in(cid:173)
`
`motion receiver high symbol rate audio system. The claims should be in allowance on
`
`the presence of the encoder and decoder language alone.
`
`7
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/570,343
`Attorney Docket No.: 1028.4
`
`These explanations and amendments remove the obviousness arguments for all
`
`remaining Claims 1-11, and 13, 15, 17, 21, and 23. Thus, for at least the reasons
`
`provided above, the prior art references are deficient in suggesting that their combination
`
`could produce the present invention, and the remaining Claims should be in allowance.
`
`Without assenting to the rejections, the applicant has cancelled claims 14, 16, 18-
`
`20, 22, and 24-26.
`
`August 3, 2010
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`•: ........ , ...
`
`Megan E. Lyman, Registration No. 57,054
`1816 Silver Mist Ct.
`Raleigh, NC 27613
`(919) 341-4023
`
`8
`
`Petitioner's Exhibit 1019
`Page 011
`
`