Ex Parte Devison

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12641508 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/641,508 12/18/2009
89133 7590 05/27/2016
RIDOUT & MAYBEE LLP
250 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
5THFLOOR
TORONTO, ON MSH 3E5
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen Arnold DEVISON
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.
42783-1430 1747
EXAMINER
MEHRA, INDER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ipinfo@ridoutmaybee.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN ARNOLD DEVISON
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 12-21. App. Br. 3; Final Act. 2. Claims 2
and 11 are cancelled. App. Br. 5; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Research In Motion Limited. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to controlling a transmitter power control system
in communication networks that include a modulation scheme having a non-
constant amplitude envelope. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the matter on appeal:
1. A method for controlling a transmitter power control
system in communication networks that include a modulation
scheme having a non-constant amplitude envelope, the method
compnsmg:
generating a transmission signal using the non-constant
amplitude envelope modulation scheme with a non-constant
amplitude envelope modulation of the transmission signal at a
first specified power level;
transitioning the transmission signal from the first
specified power level to a second specified power level and
having a transition period therebetween, including generating a
constant amplitude envelope modulation of the transmission
signal with an associated amplitude envelope during the whole
transition period; and
generating the non=constant amplitude envelope
modulation of the transmission signal at the second specified
power level.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Genest et al. (US 6,606,308 Bl;
Aug. 12, 2003) ("Genest"). Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genest in view of Matsui et al. (US 2008/0287079 Al;
Nov. 20, 2008) ("Matsui"). Final Act. 8-11.
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genest in view of Gilbert et al. (US 2010/0167670 Al;
July 1, 2010) ("Gilbert"). Final Act. 11-12.
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genest in view of Zolfaghari et al. (US 2007 /0230616;
Oct. 4, 2007) ("Zolfaghari"). Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Genest in view of Lee (US 2009/0291648 Al; Nov. 26,
2009). Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues none of the cited references teaches or suggests "any
'transitioning' of the transmission signal from the first specified power level
at the non constant amplitude envelope modulation to a constant amplitude
envelope modulation of the transmission signal during the transition period."
App. Br. 12. According to Appellant, Genest is limited to TDMA or CDMA
transmission format and therefore does not teach a non-constant amplitude
envelope modulation of the transmission signal at the first and second
specified power level. Id. Therefore, Appellant argues Genest does not
teach or suggest any "transitioning" or switching from the non-constant
3
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
amplitude envelope modulation scheme to the constant amplitude envelope
modulation and Genest's only modulation is TDMA. Id.
Appellant further argues the Examiner admits Genest does not teach
"switching to the constan[t] a[mp]litude envelope modulation[,] of the
transmission signal during the transmission period" and instead relies on
Matsui for this limitation. App. Br. 13 (citing Final Act. 9-10). Regarding
Matsui, Appellant argues Matsui does "not teach how or when the signal
should be controlled before, during and after the transition between
timeslots." Id. Instead, according to Appellant it is the subject application
"which recognizes that since UMTS typically does not have any specific
protocol or scheme that must be followed during the transition periods, there
may be opportunities to manipulate the transmitted signal, for example for
monitoring and control during the transition periods." Id. (citing Spec.
i-fi-1 49-51 ). Appellant also argues the Examiner presents insufficient
motivation to combine Genest and Matsui. Id. Appellant further argues the
Examiner misses the point by referring to Figure 5 of the Specification
because this Figure does not admit that Genest or Matsui teach "any
'transitioning' or switching from the non-constant amplitude envelope
modulation scheme to the constant amplitude envelope modulation during
the transition period." Id. at 15.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the combination of Genest and
Matsui teaches the limitations of claim 1.2 Final Act. 2--4, 8-10. In
2 Claim 1 incorporates the limitations of dependent claim 2, now cancelled.
App. Br. 5. In the Final Action, claim 1 was rejected over Genest under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claim 2 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Genest and Matsui. Final Act. 2--4, 8-10. Similarly, independent claim 10
4
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
particular, the Examiner relies on Genest for the limitation "transitioning ...
including generating a constant amplitude envelope modulation ... "and on
Matsui for the limitations "generating a non-constant amplitude envelope
modulation of the transmission signal at the first specified power level" and
"generating the non-constant amplitude envelope modulation of the
transmission signal at the second specified power level." Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would combine these
teachings to reduce stress. Id. at 10.
The Examiner makes additional findings in the Advisory Action and
Answer. In particular, the Examiner finds Figure 5 of the Specification is
admitted prior art ("admitted prior art") and teaches a conventional
transmission system employs non constant amplitude envelope modulation
at first and second specified power levels. Advisory Act. 6 (citing Spec. Fig.
5, modulation 404, 404a, 404c, conventional TX signal 414); Ans. 5-7. The
Examiner finds, regarding motivation to reduce stress, Genest discloses,
"This has two consequences: firstly, because the transmitted power is higher,
the signals transmitted during the second time slot have better physical
protection against noise." Ans. 7 (citing Genest col. 2, 11. lines 55-60).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and, instead, agree
with the Examiner's findings, particularly the additional findings in the
Advisory Action and Answer regarding the combination of the admitted
prior art and Genest, supra. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(l). Appellant argues
an unreasonably narrow teaching of Genest. We also note independent
claims 1 and 10 do not require a UMTS transmission format. Claim terms in
incorporates the limitations of dependent claim 11, now cancelled. App. Br.
5; Final Act. 4--5, 8-10.
5
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
a patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, great
care should be taken to avoid reading limitations of the Specification into the
claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Matsui does
not recognize the opportunity in UMTS to manipulate the transmitted signal
during the transition periods because the Examiner's findings regarding the
combination of the admitted prior art and Genest independently provide
reasonable basis to manipulate the transmitted signal during the transition
periods as recited in independent claims 1 and 10. Moreover, independent
claims 1 and 10 do not recite UMTS, and Appellant presents no persuasive
basis to limit these claims to UMTS. App. Br. 13.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). "[A] court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ," such as the complementary teachings of the
references, and "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418, 421 (2007). We determine the benefit gained from the combination, as
6
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
articulated by the Examiner, would have motivated an ordinarily skilled
artisan to make such a combination.
On this record, Appellant does not present sufficient evidence that the
combination of Genest and the admitted prior art was "uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious
step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor has
Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which
our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight."
Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2013).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claim 10 as it recites the same limitations and is argued together
with claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 6-9,
12, 13, and 15-19 as these claims are not argued separately.
Appellant argues Genest and Gilbert do not teach the limitation
"further comprising monitoring a power level of the transmission signal at
the transition period using the amplitude envelope of the constant amplitude
envelope modulation" as recited in claims 5 and 14. App. Br. 15-16.
According to Appellant, there is no detection of amplitude envelope in
Genest as Genest only addresses interference and noise. Id. at 16 (citing
Genest col. 2, 11. 62----67; col. 3, 1. 62). Appellant further argues Gilbert's
burst detection "is limited to transmission bursts starting from a zero
amplitude state, rather than from a first specified power level to a second
specified power level." Id. Appellant also argues:
7
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
The subject application recognizes that, since UMTS
typically does not have any specific protocol or scheme that must
be followed during the transition periods, there may be
opportunities to manipulate the transmitted signal, for example
for monitoring and control during the transition periods. This
type of environment is not described by Gilbert, so it is not
apparent how or why Gilbert would be combined with Genest et
al.
Id. at 16.
The Examiner finds Gilbert's detector system of Figure 2 is "readily
adaptable for use in RF power control for GSM modulation" and "[b ]eing
essentially an envelope detector, it responds to the modulation envelope of
the data bursts." Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner interprets the
burst interval as during the transition period and finds Gilbert's system is
"well-suited to the basic GSM modulation format, in which the RF signal
has a constant power amplitude during the burst." Id. (citing Gilbert i-f 8).
\Ve are not persuaded by 1A .. ppellant' s arguments and instead agree
with the Examiner's findings. Appellant presents no persuasive basis to
limit the claim term transition period to exclude Gilbert's data burst.
Moreover, the rejection is based on the combination of Genest and Gilbert.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 14.
Appellant argues Genest, Matsui, and Lee do not teach the limitation
"wherein generating the constant amplitude envelope modulation comprises
implementing an angle modulation of the transmission signal" as recited in
dependent claims 20 and 21. App. Br. 16-17. According to Appellant,
Lee's signal includes both an angle modulator and an amplitude modulator
and the signal is always an amplitude modulated signal modulated onto the
phase modulated carrier signal. Id. at 17. Appellant further argues Lee does
8
Appeal2014-005908
Application 12/641,508
not teach '"transitioning' or switching from the non-constant amplitude
envelope modulation scheme to the constant amplitude envelope
modulation." Id.
As discussed above, we agree the combination of Genest and the
admitted prior art discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 10, from
which claims 20 and 21 respectively depend. The Examiner finds Lee's
phase modulator operates to modulate a carrier signal according to angle
variations contained in a constant-amplitude phase modulation (PM) signal
received in a PM path, to generate a phase modulated carrier signal. Ans. 10
(citing Lee i-f 3). In particular, the Examiner finds Lee teaches constant
amplitude modulation includes angle modulation. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and instead agree
with the Examiner findings. Appellant presents no persuasive basis to limit
the claimed "angle modulation" to exclude Lee's modulation. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, and 12-
21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9