13207491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

Ex Parte Clevorn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2016

13207491 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/207,491 08/11/2011 106939 7590 09/28/2016 Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - 106939 c/o CPA Global 900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thorsten Clevorn 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P47487US 6076 EXAMINER BATISTA, MARCOS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): intel@vjp.de 106939@vjp.de Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THORSTEN CLEVORN, CHRISTIAN DREWES, and WERGEN KREUCHAUF 1 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-15, and 18-21. Claims 2, 16, and 17 have been canceled. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Intel Mobile Communications Gesellschaft mit Beschrankter Haftung as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a signal radiating device arranged to radiate signals in an area of a wireless communication network wherein a coverage area associated with a first antenna overlaps with a coverage area associated with a second antenna. Spec. ,-r 4. In a disclosed embodiment, the signal radiating device may be used when the signal strength transmitted by either the first or second antenna is below a predetermined threshold value. Spec. i-fi-1 69-70. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A communication arrangement, comprising: a first antenna mounted on a mast for transmitting signals into the coverage area of the first antenna; a second antenna mounted on said mast for transmitting signals into the coverage area of the second antenna, wherein the coverage areas of the first and second antennas overlap, creating an overlap area; and a signal radiating device which is arranged for radiating signals, which are sent out by the first antenna, into said overlap area of the first antenna and the second antenna; wherein the signal radiating device is arranged for directing the signals into an area in which the signal strength of the signals sent out by the first antenna or by the second antenna is below a predetermined first threshold value. 2 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 The Examiner's Rejections2 1. Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2008/0188226 Al; Aug. 7, 2008) ("Tsai"); Svensson et al. (US 2008/0272856 Al; Nov. 6, 2008) ("Svensson"); and Bongfeldt (US 2002/0045461 Al; Apr. 18, 2002). Final Act. 3-5, 8-9. 2. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai, Svensson, Bongfeldt, and Warner et al. (US 7,929,905 Bl; Apr. 19, 2011) ("Warner"). Final Act. 5---6. 3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai, Svensson, Bongfeldt, and Andersson (US 2008/0227387 Al; Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 6. 4. Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsai, Svensson, Bongfeldt, Andersson, and Huschke et al. (US 2009/0013365 Al; Jan. 8, 2009) ("Huschke"). Final Act. 6-8. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding Bongfeldt teaches or suggests a "signal radiating device is arranged for directing the signals into an area in which the signal strength of the signals sent out by the first antenna or by the second antenna is below a predetermined first threshold value," as recited in claim 1? 2 After the Final Office Action, Appellants amended independent claim 1 to incorporate the limitations of dependent claims 16 and 1 7 and canceled claims 16 and 17. The above description of the rejections takes these amendments into account. See Advisory Action, mailed September 9, 2014. 3 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 ANALYSIS3 Appellants contend the Examiner's reliance on Bongfeldt as teaching or suggesting a "signal radiating device is arranged for directing the signals into an area in which the signal strength of the signals sent out by the first antenna or by the second antenna is below a predetermined first threshold value," as recited in claim 1 is misplaced. App. Br. 14--17. Appellants assert Bongfeldt teaches controlling the downlink effective radiated power (ERP) of a repeater placed between a base station and a communication device. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue Bongfeldt controls the downlink (i.e., transmit) ERP based on the uplink (i.e., receive) power (or signal strength) as compared to a threshold value. App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants explain if the received signal strength is greater than a predetermined threshold, the downlink ERP of the repeater is reduced. App. Br. 14. Conversely, if the received signal strength is below a predetermined threshold, the downlink ERP of the repeater is increased. App. Br. 14. Further, Appellants contend the only power level that is compared to a predetermined threshold in Bongfeldt is the received (uplink) signal strength. App. Br. 16. Appellants assert the repeater in Bongfeldt "directs its downlink RF signal to the communication device from which the uplink signal has been received." App. Br. 16 (citing Bongfeldt i-f 81). Appellants conclude: Bongfeldt directs its transmission signal into an area in which inherently the signal strength of the uplink signal from the 3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed January 6, 2015 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed June 5, 2015 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on April 7, 2015 ("Ans."); the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on July 24, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 communication device would be larger than the threshold against which the received uplink signal is measured at the repeater 2. Accordingly, the disclosure in Bongfeldt is the opposite of the claimed feature, i.e.[,] Bongfeldt discloses directing the downlink signal from the repeater into an area in which the uplink signal strength from the communication device is larger than the predetermined threshold against which the received uplink signal strength from the communication device is measured at the repeater. App. Br. 16. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Bongfeldt is directed to adaptively controlling the coverage area of an on-frequency repeater. Bongfeldt, Abstract, i-f 3. Bongfeldt teaches "on- frequency repeaters are typically provided by the wireless network provider in order to improve signal quality in high noise or attenuation environments, where signal levels would otherwise be too low for satisfactory quality of service." Bongfeldt i-f 5. As the Examiner explains, Bongfeldt teaches the repeater (comprising a Directional Donor Unit (DDU) and Subscriber Coverage Unit (SCU)) "operates to relay signals from the base station to the wireless communication device and vice versa ... when the signal transmitted by the base station is perceived by the repeater and/or wireless communication device to fall below a predetermined threshold level." Ans. 10 (referring to Bongfeldt i-f 44). Additionally, Bongfeldt teaches the repeater is operable to "reach back" into a reliable coverage area of the network provided by the base station "in an otherwise poorly serviced area of the network." Bongfeldt i-f 40. In other words, a repeater, such as one taught in Bongfeldt, may be used when the coverage or signal strength of a base station is below a predetermined threshold value. See also Ans. 9-10 (citing Bongfeldt i-fi-1 40, 53). Accordingly, contrary to Appellants' 5 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 assertions, we do not find Bongfeldt operates in an opposite manner to Appellants' claimed feature. In their Reply Brief, Appellants further argue Bongfeldt teaches the DDU of the repeater is operable to receive signals as low as -120 dBm from the base station and that the repeater cannot relay signals from the base station if the base station is transmitting below the -120 dBm threshold. Reply Br. 3. Additionally, Appellants assert the repeater in Bongfeldt operates to maintain a constant coverage area, irrespective of the received signal strength (uplink) at the repeater. Reply Br. 4. Thus, Appellants again assert the repeater in Bongfeldt "does not perform relaying of the signal when the signal transmitted by the base station is perceived by the repeater and/or the wireless communication device to fall below a predetermined threshold, but instead performs relaying independent from the actual received signal strength from the base station." Reply Br. 4. We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. As discussed supra, Bongfeldt teaches the repeater is used when an area of the network is "poorly serviced" and to "reach back" into the reliable coverage area of the wireless communication network. Bongfeldt i-f 40. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bongfeldt teaches "[a] signal radiating device is arranged for directing the signals into an area in which the signal strength of the signals sent out by the first antenna or by the second antenna is below a predetermined first threshold value." To the extent Appellants' arguments are directed to the uplink signal strength as received by Bongfeldt's repeater, we find these arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and, thus, do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 6 Appeal2015-006174 Application 13/207,491 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3-15, and 18-21, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 8. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-15, and 18- 21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 7