Dong Geun LEE et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2021

2020000917 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
13/158,788 06/13/2011 Dong Geun LEE 0203-0256 1158
68103 7590 10/01/2021
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
SLOMS, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2021 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG GEUN LEE, YOUNG BAE PARK, YOUNG KYU CHOI,
and KI BACK KIM
Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, 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 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, and
43 (see Non-Final Act. 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a transmission power control method of
base station in of CDMA-based wireless communication system. Claim 21,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. A method for controlling a power amplifier of a base station
in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
detecting, at a radio frequency (RF) unit of the base
station, power of each of one or more symbols in a subframe;
determining, at the RF unit, whether each of the one or
more symbols includes user data based on a result of the
detection;
when a first symbol of the one or more symbols does not
include the user data, controlling, at the RF unit, to turn off a bias
of the power amplifier for a duration of the first symbol in the
subframe; and
when a second symbol of the one or more symbols
includes the user data, controlling, at the RF unit, to turn on the
bias of the power amplifier for a duration of the second symbol.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yano US 2002/0111199 A1 Aug. 15, 2002
Kontson US 2004/0124916 A1 July 1, 2004
Zhang US 2013/0188531 A1 July 25, 2013

Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788

3
REJECTION2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35,
36, 39, 42, 43
103(a) Zhang, Kontson, Yano

We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43
Appellant contends the invention, as recited in claims 21, 24, 28, 31,
33, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43, is not obvious over Zhang, Kontson, and Yano
(Appeal Br. 6–10).
Appellant argues, the Examiner has not shown the references teach
“detecting, at a radio frequency (RF) unit of the base station, power of each
of one or more symbols in a subframe” (id. at 8–10; Reply Br. 5–6).
According to Appellant,
the claim relates to detecting an amount of power in each symbol
in the actual power amplifier (i.e., ‘detecting, at a RF unit of the
base station, power of each of one or more symbols in a
subframe’) and then controlling the bias of the power amplifier
based on whether the symbol includes user data

2 The rejections of claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Zhang and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Zhang and Kontson (Non-Final Act. 4), have been
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788

4
(Appeal Br. 8).
The Examiner finds that Zhang, Kontson, and Yano, teach the
disputed limitation (Non-Final Act. 5–6) and responds that Appellant is
arguing the references individually (Ans. 9). The Examiner finds Zhang
teaches “determining, at the RF unit, whether each of the one or more
symbols includes user data based on a result of the detection”; Kontson
teaches “amplifier and array functionality . . . to correlate symbol
transmissions with one or more amplifiers”; and Yano teaches “processing
symbol portions . . . according to information gleaned from watching the
signal (Non-Final Act. 5–6 (citing Zhang ¶ 43, Fig. 9; Konston ¶ 36; Yano
¶¶ 33–34)).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Zhang’s “no user data”
in the scheduling information corresponds to the recited detecting power
(Appeal Br. 8). More specifically, Appellant argues the cited paragraphs of
Zhang do not teach that power of the symbols is detected to determine
whether to turn the bias of the power amplifier on or off (id. at 9 (citing
Zhang ¶¶ 43, 57)). Rather, according to Appellant, this disclosure in Zhang
teaches “us[ing] the scheduling information to determine whether to
selectively mute symbols” (Reply Br. 5).
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not sufficiently shown
Zhang teaches detecting power of each of the symbols in a subframe. In
particular, Zhang teaches “the transmission time is partitioned into 10ms-
long frames . . . further equally divided into 10 subframes,” each of which
contains 14 equally divided time slots or symbols in the time domain (Zhang
¶ 42; Ans. 9). Zhang further teaches “[t]he PA-on time can be minimized if
the transmission management unit or scheduler in a base station can
Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788

5
schedule downlink transmissions to the extent that, for a certain period of
time duration (e.g., a frame, a subframe or a few symbols or time units),
there is no downlink traffic (voice or data) transmission” (Zhang ¶ 43; Ans.
9). Furthermore, the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how Zhang’s
disclosure of minimizing PA-on time based on a schedule where there is no
downlink traffic, teaches “detecting, at a radio frequency (RF) unit of the
base station, power of each of one or more symbols in a subframe,” as
recited in claim 21. Zhang does not disclose any detecting of power, only
PA-on time depending on whether a scheduler can schedule downlink
transmission (Zhang ¶ 43). Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner has not
shown the combination of Zhang, Kontson, and Yano teaches or suggests the
limitations recited in independent claim 21.
Similarly, the Examiner has also not shown the combination of Zhang,
Kontson, and Yano teaches independent claim 28. Indeed, the Examiner has
not set forth any mapping of how the references teach the limitations of
claim 28 (see Non-Final Act., generally).
Appellant presents additional arguments regarding the combination’s
teachings, and an additional argument that “[t]he claims cannot be
interpreted based on Ex parte Schulhauser[3] because the claims relate to
independent conditions” and not “a single condition with different
alternatives” (Appeal Br. 6 (original emphasis omitted, new emphasis
added)). Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
This is not a determination that Appellant’s arguments are persuasive.

3 Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (PTAB April
28, 2016) (precedential)
Appeal 2020-000917
Application 13/158,788

6
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner did not show the
combination of Zhang, Kontson, and Yano teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claims 21 and 28. Dependent claims
24, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 stand with their respective independent
claims.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 21, 24, 28, 31, 33,
35, 36, 39, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Zhang,
Kontson, and Yano.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 24, 28,
31, 33, 35,
36, 39, 42,
43
103(a) Zhang, Kontson,
Yano
21, 24, 28,
31, 33, 35,
36, 39, 42,
43

REVERSED