Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2013

10676965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2013)

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.
10/676,965 10/01/2003 Wanshi Chen 4740-212 8121
24112 7590 02/25/2013
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
KARIKARI, KWASI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2013 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 WANSHI CHEN and REZA SHAHIDI
____________________

Appeal 2010-004654
Application 10/676,965
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R MacDONALD, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004654
Application 10/676,965

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-23.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
The claims are directed to method and apparatus to improve CDMA
reverse link performance. Spec. ¶[0001]. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of improving reverse link communications at a
Radio Base Station (RBS) providing a plurality of radio sectors,
the method comprising:
forcing always-softer reverse link handoff conditions at
the RBS for mobile stations served by the RBS based on
assigning one or more additional reverse links from remaining
sectors of the RBS if a reverse link is assigned to a mobile
station from a serving sector of the RBS; and
combining reverse link signals from the assigned reverse
links to obtain a combined reverse link signal for the mobile
station.

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilhousen (US 5,625,876; Apr.
29, 1997). Ans. 4-9.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.
2 Throughout the decision, we make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Aug. 24, 2007), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
May 12, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 6, 2008).
Appeal 2010-004654
Application 10/676,965

3
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gilhousen and Nakano (US 6,011,787; Jan. 4, 2000). Ans.
9-10.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilhousen and Tiedemann (US
2002/0154610 A1; Oct. 24, 2002). Ans. 10-13.

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Gilhousen disclosed
“forcing always-softer reverse link handoff conditions at the RBS . . . based
on assigning one or more additional reverse links from remaining sectors of
the RBS” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend that Gilhousen teaches or suggests softer handoff
where pilot signal strength is used to determine whether a handoff should
proceed. App. Br. 4; Reply 2-3. In contrast, Appellants argue their claimed
method always forces a handoff and does not rely on conditional monitoring
of pilot signals. App. Br. 4-5.
The Examiner found that Gilhousen teaches “the communicating and
monitoring [from the mobile units] include signal pilots from multiple
sectors of the base station” and associates “the signal pilot from multiple
sectors . . . with the assignment of the ‘extra or additional reverse link as
described’” in Appellants’ claims. Ans. 14. (Emphasis in original).
Having reviewed Appellants’ argument and the Examiner’s answer,
we agree with Appellants that Gilhousen fails to teach or suggest always
forcing a softer handoff by “assigning one or more additional reverse links
from remaining sectors of the RBS.” The section of Gilhousen cited by the
Appeal 2010-004654
Application 10/676,965

4
Examiner, col. 8, l. 51- col. 9, l. 21, teaches that the mobile monitors the
pilot signal from the base station and initiates a handoff when the pilot signal
exceeds a predetermined threshold. Ans. 14. We agree with Appellants that
“monitoring signal pilots from multiple sectors is not equivalent to the
assignment of extra or additional reverse links.” Reply 2-3. The monitored
pilot signal is distinct from the reverse link described in Gilhousen. See,
e.g., Gilhousen, col. 2, ll. 9-19; col. 4, ll. 4-6.
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner erred in finding
that Gilhousen disclosed “forcing always-softer reverse link handoff
conditions at the RBS . . . based on assigning one or more additional reverse
links from remaining sectors of the RBS” as recited in independent claim 1.
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Gilhousen. The “forcing always-softer
handoffs” limitation forms the basis of rejection for independent claims 1,
10 and 17 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-24. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C §103(a) of independent
claims 10 and 17 and dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-24.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED

ke