Ex parte Bolgiano et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 1, 2001

08539276 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte D. RIDGELY BOLGIANO
and GILBERT E. LAVEAN
____________
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 14
through 23, 43 through 58, 72 through 81, 101 through 116 and
139 through 194.
The disclosed invention relates to a wireless
communication system and method that transmits a first data
packet from a first antenna in a first time slot to a
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
2
subscriber station, and a second data packet from a second
antenna in a second time slot to the subscriber station. The
second time slot occurs after the first time slot, and the
first and second time slots are selected so that the first
antenna and the second antenna do not simultaneously transmit
data to the subscriber station.
Claim 14 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
14. In a wireless communication system, wherein a data packet
is communicated from a signal source to a subscriber station,
said system including a transfer station between said signal
source and said subscriber station for receiving said data
packet from said signal source and retransmitting said data
packet to said subscriber station, said transfer station
including a transfer station receiver, first and second
transfer station transmitters and first and second antennas
spaced apart from each other, a method at said transfer
station comprising:
receiving said data packet at said transfer station;
retransmitting said data packet from said first antenna
to form a first transmitted data packet in a first time
slot; and
retransmitting said data packet from said second antenna
to form a second transmitted data packet after said first
transmitted data packet in a second time slot, said
second time slot occurring after said first time slot;
wherein said first and second time slots are selected so that
said first antenna and said second antenna do not
simultaneously transmit data to said subscriber station.
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Dean et al. (Dean) 5,513,176 Apr. 30,
1996
(filed Aug. 27, 1993)
Leppanen 5,533,013 July 2,
1996
(effectively filed date Nov. 29,
1993)
Claims 14, 15, 23, 43, 44, 52, 53, 72, 73, 81, 101, 102,
110 and 111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Dean.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 45, 46, 48, 54 through 56, 74, 75, 77,
103, 104, 106, 112 through 114, 139 through 143, 147, 148,
150, 154 through 158, 160 through 171, 175 through 178 and 182
through 194 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dean in view of Leppanen.
Claims 18, 20 through 22, 47, 49 through 51, 58, 76, 78
through 80, 105, 107 through 109, 116, 144 through 146, 149,
151 through 153, 159, 172 through 174, 177 and 179 through 181
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Dean in view of Leppanen and admitted prior art.
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
The statements of the rejections omit claims 57 and 115.1
4
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the1
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
All of the claims on appeal state that the first antenna
and the second antenna “do not simultaneously transmit data to
said subscriber station.” The examiner contends (answer, page
9) that “Dean, discloses the signal transmitted from different
antennas, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, at different times
which means signals are not simultaneously transmitted.” The
appellants argue (brief, pages 2, 3 and 12) that the short
delay of the delay device used in Dean causes the antennas to
transmit the same signal substantially simultaneously to a
subscriber receiver.
In Dean, an analog transmitter 120 located in base
station 100 transmits the same signal over two different
distribution cables 130 and 132 and two different antennas
located in node 200A (Figure 2). The signal that travels via
cable 130 is delayed with respect to the signal that travels
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
5
via cable 132 by delay element 150 for one chip duration
(column 9, lines 11 through 28).
Dean never compares the time duration of “one chip
duration” to the time period needed to transmit the noted
signal. Without a comparison of the two time periods, we have
no way of knowing whether the first transmission of the signal
via cable 132 ends before the start of the second transmission
of the signal via delay element 150 and cable 130. As a
result thereof, we can not agree with the examiner’s
conclusion that the two signals are not simultaneously
transmitted.
In summary, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
14, 15, 23, 43, 44, 52, 53, 72, 73, 81, 101, 102, 110 and 111
is reversed because we will not resort to speculation as to
the teachings of Dean.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 16 through 22,
45 through 51, 54 through 56, 58, 74 through 80, 103 through
109, 112 through 114, 116 and 139 through 194 are reversed
because the teachings of Leppanen and the so-called admitted
prior art do not cure the noted shortcoming in the teachings
of Dean.
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
6
DECISION
All of the rejections are reversed. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
7
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
lp
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
8
ALLAN J JACOBSON
2200 BYBERRY ROAD
HATBORO PA 19040
Leticia
Appeal No. 1998-2992
Application No. 08/539,276
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ BARRY
APJ KRASS
DECISION: REVERSED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s):
Prepared: May 20, 2002
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT