Ex parte Briley

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2002

08553202 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2002)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRUCE E. BRILEY
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, DIXON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1 and 3-
11, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a TDM/TDMA wireless telecommunication
system with an electronic scanning antenna. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A base station that is capable of communicating with a plurality of
wireless terminals, said base station comprising;
an electronic scanning antenna for continuously rotating a beam that
carries communication messages between said base station and said
wireless terminals;
a transmitter operatively coupled to said electronic scanning antenna
that is capable of transmitting said communication messages, via said
electronic scanning antenna, to said wireless terminals in a time-division
multiplexed data stream that is synchronized with the rotation of said beam;
and
a receiver operatively coupled to said electronic scanning antenna
that is capable of receiving said communication messages, via said
electronic scanning antenna, from said wireless terminals in a time-division
multiple access data stream that is substantially synchronized with the
rotation of said beam.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Ahl et al. (Ahl) 5,448,753 Sep. 5, 1995
Claims 1 and 3-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ahl.
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed Oct. 14, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Jul. 31, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that Ahl does not teach or suggest the use of continuous rotation
of the antenna as recited in the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 3.) Appellant
further argues that skilled artisans would not have been motivated to modify the discrete
sampling of Ahl to a continuously rotating beam. (See brief at page 3.) Appellant argues
that Ahl teaches away from the present invention. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with
appellant's that Ahl does teach away from the claimed invention since continually rotating
the beam would have required higher power, produced more interference and variation in
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
4
signal strength, and Ahl expressly states that continual contact with stations was a
drawback in the prior art.
We further note that Ahl mentions at col. 1, lines 30-32 that a drawback of the prior
art methods for sharing resources is that the central station disposed in the center of the
area must "be able continuously to reach the peripheral stations spread out in each cell
area or sector (e.g. within 360E or 90E.; see FIGS. 1 and 2." Ahl further discloses that an
object of the system is to minimize total power consumption and to minimize interference.
In view of these teachings, we find that a skilled artisan would not have been as readily
motivated to modify the teachings of Ahl to have a continuously rotating beam as the
examiner contends at pages 3-4 of the answer. The examiner maintains that if
interference and power consumption is not critical, then the skilled artisan would have been
motivated to adapt Ahl to use a continuous beam. (See answer at pages 4 and 6.) The
examiner provides no motivation for the conditional finding (id., page 6) that "if minimizing
interference and power consumption is not critical" it would have been obvious to use a
continuously rotating beam. We find that the examiner is relying upon speculation which is
not supported by the teachings or suggestions within Ahl. Furthermore, the examiner has
not provided any evidence or common knowledge in the relevant art to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
5
prima facie case of obviousness of independent claims 1 and 11 and their dependent
claims 3-10.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
6
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JD/RWK
Appeal No. 2000-0406
Application No. 08/553,202
7
S H DWORETSKY
AT&T BELL LABORATORIES
600 MOUNTAIN AVENUE PO BOX 636
MURRAY HILL, NJ 07974-0636