Ex Parte CampDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 2, 201411615281 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation