Ex Parte Dick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2013

10688223 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN G. DICK and MARIAN RUDOLF
___________

Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 39-44. Claims 1-38 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to controlling transmitter power in a
wireless communication system that utilizes both dedicated and shared
channels. A network unit has a receiver for receiving uplink (UL) user data
from wireless transmit receive units (WTRUs) on uplink dedicated channels
(UL DCHs) and at least one uplink shared channel (UL SCH). The network
unit also has a processor for computing target metrics for UL DCHs based
on the reception of signals transmitted by a WTRU on an UL DCH
associated with an UL SCH usable by the WTRU. A shared channel target
metric generator is provided that is configured to output a respective UL
SCH target metric derived from each computed UL DCH target metric.
(Abstract.)
Claim 39 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
39. A serving wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU)
configured to implement transmission power control for other
WTRUs wherein the serving WTRU receives data signals on an
uplink dedicated channel (UL DCH) and sporadically receives
data signals on an associated uplink shared channel (UL SCH),
the serving WTRU comprising:
a receiver configured to receive UL user data from
another WTRU on an UL DCH and at least one UL SCH;
a processor configured to compute UL DCH target
metrics based on the received UL user data on the UL DCH
associated with the UL SCH used by the other WTRU; and
Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

3
a shared channel target metric generator configured to
output a respective UL SCH target metric derived from each
computed UL DCH target metric for use in computing UL
channel power adjustments by the other WTRU.

Claims 39-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Willenegger (WO 02/065667 A1; Aug. 22, 2002), Dominique
(U.S. Patent No. 6,400,960 B1; June 4, 2002) and Vanghi (U.S. Patent No.
6,711,150 B1; Mar. 23, 2004, filed Apr. 7, 2000).

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 13-21) that the
combination of Willenegger, Dominique, and Vanghi would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 39, which includes the limitation “a
shared channel target metric generator configured to output a respective UL
SCH target metric derived from each computed UL DCH target metric.”
The Examiner found that the downlink dedicated physical channel
(downlink DPCH) assigned to a user terminal of Willenegger corresponds to
the limitation “uplink dedicated channel (UL DCH)” and that the physical
downlink shared channel (PDSCH) assigned to the user terminal of
Willenegger corresponds to the limitation “associated uplink shared channel
(UL SCH).” (Ans. 4-5, 8; Willenegger, p. 7, ll. 20-27.) The Examiner
acknowledged that Willenegger does not disclose the limitation “a shared
channel target metric generator configured to output a respective UL SCH
target metric derived from each computed UL DCH target metric” (Ans. 5-
6) and thus, relied upon Dominique for teaching user equipment that updates
a power threshold for secondary channel based on a previously established
power threshold for associated primary channel (Ans. 6; Dominique, col. 8,
Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

4
ll. 45-51). The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to
modify the teachings of Willenegger with the teachings of Dominique in
order to provide power control in a given channel during times of
discontinuous transmission, where a primary and a secondary channel exist.”
(Ans. 6.) We agree with the Examiner.
Willenegger relates to “controlling transmit power of multiple
channels in a CDMA [code division multiple access] communication system
(e.g., a W-CDMA [wideband CDMA] system).” (P. 1, ll. 10-12.) Figure 1
of Willenegger illustrates a wireless communication system 100 (p. 3, ll. 35-
36), including multiple base stations 104 and multiple user terminals 106
(p. 4, ll. 19-22). Willenegger explains that “[f]or each communication in a
W-CDMA system, a downlink dedicated physical channel (downlink
DPCH) is typically assigned to the user terminal for the duration of the
communication” (p. 7, ll. 20-22) and that “[i]f additional transmission
capability is needed, a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) may also
be assigned to the user terminal” (p. 7, ll. 26-27). Thus, Willenegger teaches
the limitations an “uplink dedicated channel (UL DCH)” and an “associated
uplink shared channel (UL SCH).”
Dominique relates to “wireless communication systems.” (Col. 1,
ll. 9-10.) In the “Description of the Related Art” section, Dominique
explains that “[s]econdary channels are additional channels that are mainly
used to provide higher data rates to a user” (col. 2, ll. 24-25) and that “[i]n
an effort to use power efficiently and reduce the occurrence of interference,
communication systems have adopted a Discontinuous Transmission (DTX)
protocol for the secondary channels” (col. 3, ll. 15-18). In one embodiment
of Dominique:
Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

5
user equipment 200 . . . calculates an updated power threshold
for secondary channel 220 based on (1) previously established
power threshold (i.e., P(k)) for associated primary channel 202;
(2) previously established power threshold (i.e., S(k)) for
secondary channel 220 and current established power threshold
level (i.e., P(k+1)) for associated primary channel 202.
(Col. 8, ll. 45-51.)
The combination of Willenegger and Dominique is nothing more than
the incorporation of the known user equipment of Dominique that updates a
power threshold for a secondary channel, based on a previously established
power threshold, for an associated primary channel with the known code
division multiple access (CDMA) communication system of Dominique, to
yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6) that modifying
Willenegger to include the user equipment of Dominique that updates a
power threshold for a secondary channel, based on a previously established
power threshold, for an associated primary channel, would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill.
Appellants argue that “Dominique does not specifically teach a
dedicated channel (DCH) as the primary channel and a shared channel
(SCH) as a secondary channel which is the context of the appealed claims.”
(Br. 15-16.) However, the Examiner cited Willenegger, rather than
Dominique, for teaching the “uplink dedicated channel (UL DCH)” and the
“associated uplink shared channel (UL SCH).” (Ans. 4-5, 8.)
Appellants also argue that:
Dominique does not teach anything equivalent to the claimed
“shared channel target metric generator configured to output a
respective UL SCH target metric derived from each computed
UL DCH target metric,” since the primary channel metric P(k)
Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

6
is not used for initially determining the secondary channel
metric S(k) either initially or when the secondary channel is
determined to be in DTX mode through measuring the
secondary channel.
(Br. 17.) However, the Examiner cited Dominique for the general teaching
of updating a power threshold for secondary channel based on a previously
established power threshold for associated primary channel (Ans. 6), rather
than the specific examples argued by Appellants (Br. 16-18).
Appellants further argue that:
both applied references [Willenegger and Dominique] that
discuss power control for multiple channels, teach measuring
components and steps of each power controlled channel. This
teaches away from the benefit realized through the claimed
invention of the elimination of the measuring components and
related processing of the received SCH to determine SCH
power control metrics where there is a related received DCH.
(Br. 21.) However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with
claim 39, because the claim does not expressly require elimination of the
measuring components and related processing of the received SCH to
determine SCH power control metrics where there is a related received
DCH.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Willenegger, Dominique, and Vanghi would have rendered obvious
independent claim 39, which includes the limitation “a shared channel target
metric generator configured to output a respective UL SCH target metric
derived from each computed UL DCH target metric.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 40 and 41 depend from claim 39, and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
Appeal 2011-003866
Application 10/688,223

7
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 40 and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 39.
Independent claim 42 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 39, and Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the rejection of
claims 42, as well as dependent claims 43 and 44, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 39.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 39-44 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc