Ex Parte Camp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 2, 2014

11615281 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2014)

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.
11/615,281 12/22/2006 William O. Camp JR. 2002-393 / PU06 0492US1 1670
54472 7590 09/02/2014
COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
SCHWARTZ, JOSHUA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM O. CAMP, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN G. NEW, and JOHN F.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant files this under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse. We also enter new grounds of rejection pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

SUMMARY OF INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method of reducing power consumption
by selectively enabling and disabling transmit diversity in a mobile terminal
based on the output levels of the mobile terminal's transmitters. Spec. 5.
Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of reducing power consumption in a code division
multiple access terminal having first and second
transmitters, the method comprising:
calculating a total output power level for first and second
transmitters; and
switching between transmitting in a diversity mode and a
non-diversity mode based on the total output power level.

12. A method of reducing power consumption in a code
division multiple access terminal having first and second
transmitters, the method comprising:
computing a difference between output power levels of
first and second transmitters; and
switching between a diversity mode and a non-diversity
mode based on the computed difference.

Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–4 and 18–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braun
1
in view of Kim.
2

2. The Examiner rejected claims 5–17 and 22–34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Braun, in view of Kim and
further in view of Ishida.
3

ISSUES
A. Whether the combination of Braun and Kim discloses switching
between diversity and non-diversity transmission modes based on
the total power level of first and second transmitters.

B. Whether the combination of Braun, Kim, and Ishida discloses
switching between diversity and non-diversity transmission modes
based on the difference between first and second transmitter power
levels.

ANALYSIS
A. Whether the combination of Braun and Kim discloses switching
between diversity and non-diversity transmission modes based on
the total power level of first and second transmitters.

Appellant argues: (1) that Braun teaches switching between diversity
transmission modes based on link quality rather than total power; (2) that
Kim does not teach switching between diversity transmission modes; and (3)
that Kim only determines total power incidental to determining the
allocation of that power among a plurality of transmitters. Appellant further
argues that neither Kim, Braun, nor the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellant’s invention motivates or suggests using

1
US Patent Publ. No. 2004/0203451 A1, published Oct. 14, 2004.
2
US Patent Publ. No. 2002/0187753 A1, published Dec. 12, 2002.
3
US Patent No. 6,564,069 B1, issued on May 13, 2003.
Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
4
Kim’s total power measurement as the basis upon which to switch diversity
transmission modes as taught by Braun. App. Br. 6–8.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. Kim discloses that the
total transmission power of a communication apparatus can be allocated
among a plurality of transmitters either equally or using a water-filling
method. Kim ¶ 5. Regardless of the method, Kim discloses that the total
power PT, described as “the total amount of power available by the
transmitting antennae,” is allocated among the antennae. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 44. We
do not find that Kim discloses that the total power PT is variable, and
therefore suitable for use as the independent variable upon which a decision
to switch diversity transmission modes can be based. Consequently, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

B. Whether the combination of Braun, Kim, and Ishida discloses
switching between diversity and non-diversity transmission modes
based on the difference between first and second transmitter power
levels.

Appellant argues that Ishida discloses measuring reception levels at
diverse receivers rather than transmission levels at diverse transmitters.
App. Br. 13. Moreover, Appellant argues Ishida only discloses comparing
reception levels rather than determining a difference between them. Id.
Consequently, Appellant argues that the combination of Braun, Kim and
Ishida
4
fails to disclose switching diversity transmission modes based on a
computed difference in transmitter power levels as recited in claim 12.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive. The Examiner relies
solely on Ishida for disclosing computing a difference in transmitter power

4
As Appellant correctly notes, the Examiner does not appear to rely on Kim
in the rejection of claim 12. App. Br. 12.
Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
5
levels. Ans. 8. From the record before us, we find no support that Ishida
discloses determining transmitter power levels or determining a difference in
transmitter power levels. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim
12.

C. New Grounds of Rejection

Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over PCT Publication No. WO 00/11806 to Bird et al. (hereinafter “Bird”)
published on March 2, 2000.
Bird discloses “a method of enabling selective diversity transmission,
and a wireless telecommunications network that employs the system or the
method.” Bird 5:4–6. For example, in one embodiment, Bird discloses
selectively enabling “diversity transmission for each input signal as a
function of one or more system characteristics, such as an average
transmission bit error rate (BER).” Id. at 14:21–23. Bird further discloses
that the BER is proportional to the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of signals
transmitted in diversity mode 320. See Bird, Fig. 3. We take Official Notice
that the SNR of signals transmitted in diversity mode is proportional to the
total output power of the transmitters that are transmitting those signals. The
Board may take Official Notice of “facts beyond the record which . . . are
capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy
dispute.” In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). Consequently,
we find the invention recited in claim 1 to be obvious in view of Bird.
Moreover, Bird discloses that in addition to BER, “[a]ny system
characteristic can be used, individually or in combination with one or more
other system characteristics, to trigger the enablement of diversity
Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
6
transmission.” Bird 15:9–11. Bird defines a system characteristic to
“include any measurable parameter related to the transmission performance
of the system 400, a capability of a remote receiver, or a class of service
associated with a remote receiver or system user.” Id. at 14:12–15.
We take Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of Appellant’s invention would have known that the total output power or
the difference in output power of first and second diversity transmitters were
system characteristics or measureable parameters that could have been used
to selectively enable diversity transmission as taught by Bird. We note, for
example, that US Patent No. 8,199,735 B2 to Abreu et al. (hereinafter
“Abreu”), issued on June 12, 2012 and based on an Application filed on
December 12, 2006, discloses “a method and apparatus for modifying a
transmit diversity signal . . . .” Abreu 1:24, 25. Abreu further discloses that
the transmit diversity signal can be modified by modifying one of its
characteristic features, such as its “relative phase, relative amplitude, relative
power, absolute power, frequency, timing, other suitable signal feature that
may be modulated, or any combination of the preceding.” Id. at 5:13–19.
Thus, Abreu discloses that both the absolute and relative power of diversity
mode transmitters were characteristics of diversity transmission systems that
were known to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
Bird teaches that any transmission system characteristic known to
persons of skill in the art, such as the absolute or relative power levels of
diversity mode transmitters, can be used alone or in combination with other
system characteristics to selectively enable diversity mode transmission.
Consequently, we find the inventions recited in claim 1 (selecting diversity
Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
7
mode based on total output power of first and second transmitters) and in
claim 12 (selecting diversity mode based on difference in output power
between first and second transmitters) to be obvious in view of Bird and the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
DECISION
For the reasons noted above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter new
grounds of rejection, and find claims 1 and 12 to be unpatentable over Bird
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In doing so, we note that we are primarily a
reviewing body, rather than a place of initial examination. We therefore
leave it to the Examiner to determine whether those claims that depend from
claims 1 and 12, respectively, should be rejected on similar grounds to those
set forth herein or in combination with additional prior art.
Section 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant
to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Rather,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION,
Appellant must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the
new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the newly
rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the
examiner . . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record . . . .
Appeal 2012-003419
Application 11/615,281
8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

kis