Ex Parte Haapoja

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2009

10443928 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAMI HAAPOJA
____________

Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: August 28, 2009
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16. Claims 7 and 15 have been indicated as containing
allowable subject matter (Ans. 10). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is an apparatus and method used in
wireless telecommunications for weighting signal power in a transmitter to
reduce signal distortion caused by changes in amplification power (Spec. ¶¶
[0001], [0002], [0010]). A power amplifier is adjusted between various
amplification power levels by changing its operating voltage to control
signal transmission power and thereby control overall power consumption
(Spec. ¶ [0004]). As the power amplifier is adjusted, the signal to be
transmitted is correspondingly weighted such that distortions in
amplification are compensated and the effective value of the amplified
signal remains within desired limits for telecommunications (Spec. ¶¶
[0006], [0009], [0010], [0031]; Figs. 4, 5).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A method for controlling signal power in a transmitter of a
radio system, the method comprising:
generating an amplified signal by amplifying a signal at a
power amplifier; and
changing the effective value of the amplified signal by
modifying the operating voltage of the power amplifier and by
weighting the signal as the operating voltage changes such that the
effective value of the amplified signal remains within a predetermined
value range.

REFERENCES
Weir US 4,380,089 Apr. 12, 1983
Ichihara US 6,434,373 B2 Aug. 13, 2002
(filed Aug. 3, 1998)

Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Weir and Ichihara.
Appellant contends neither Weir nor Ichihara teach changing the
effective value of an amplified signal such that it remains within a
predetermined value range (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 8, 9).

ISSUE
Has Appellant established the Examiner erred in finding Weir and
Ichihara teach changing an effective value of an amplified signal by
modifying the operating voltage of an amplifier and weighting a signal to be
amplified as the operating voltage changes?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s claimed invention reduces signal distortion in
wireless signals caused by changes in amplification power (Spec. ¶¶ [0001],
[0002], [0010]). The wireless signals are weighted to compensate for
changing amplifier gain to produce an amplified signal that remains within a
desired predetermined range for telecommunications (see Spec. ¶¶ [0028],
[0029], [0031]; Figs. 3-5).
2. Weir teaches a transmitter and method that prolongs the
mission life of the battery source by limiting current supplied to a signal
amplifier (col. 1, ll. 9-14; col. 2, ll. 26-29; Fig. 1). A control circuit controls
the voltage provided to the signal amplifier to correspondingly limit the
amount of current drawn by the signal amplifier to not exceed a
predetermined maximum value (col. 2, ll. 15-26; Abstract).
Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928

4
3. Ichihara teaches an attenuator 15 for attenuating a signal to be
amplified and wirelessly transmitted by a portable telephone (col. 1, ll. 6-8;
col. 3, ll. 13-22; Fig. 2). The attenuator is controlled by a digital attenuation
control signal Sc such that the attenuator is in either an off-state or an on-
state (col. 3, ll. 14-19; col. 5, ll. 62-65; Fig. 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. See id.

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Weir and Ichihara
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 as obvious over
Weir and Ichihara. Appellant argues this rejection with respect to
independent claims 1 and 9, claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 standing or falling
therewith. (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 8-9). This rejection is addressed with
respect to independent claims 1 and 9 as they have commensurate
limitations.
The Examiner’s assertion that Weir teaches adjusting the value of an
amplifier signal by modifying an amplifier's operating voltage is correct
(Ans. 4; FF 2). However, as noted by the Examiner, Weir does not teach or
suggest weighting the signal to be amplified (Ans. 5). The Examiner then
finds that Ichihara teaches attenuating the signal to be amplified and that
attenuating is a form of weighting (Ans. 5).
Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928

5
Ichihara’s attenuator is controlled by a single digital control line
carrying an attenuator control signal. The attenuator control signal is a
digital signal and functions to put the attenuator into either an on-state or an
off-state. (FF 3) However, even if we assume, without deciding, that the
attenuator “weights” the amplified signal as the Examiner seems to suggest
(Ans. 14), and that such a teaching is combinable with Weir, it is not clear in
Ichihara how and under what conditions the attenuator is switched in the
system apart from using a control signal. Nor is it clear on this record how
the signal in this arrangement would be amplified as the operating voltage
changes, as Appellant claims. Because Ichihara does not teach attenuating
the signal as the operating voltage of a power amplifier changes thereby
changing an effective value of the amplified signal, Ichihara does not cure
the deficiencies of Weir as asserted by the Examiner.
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 is
reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 10-14, and
16 is also reversed for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has established the Examiner erred in finding Weir and
Ichihara teach changing an effective value of an amplified signal by
modifying the operating voltage of an amplifier and weighting a signal to be
amplified as the operating voltage changes.

Appeal 2009-003137
Application 10/443,928

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 is
reversed.
REVERSED

KIS

Hollingsworth & Funk
8500 Normandale Lake Blvd.
Suite 320
Minneapolis, MN 55437