Ex Parte Iwamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2011

11146340 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2011)

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.
11/146,340 06/06/2005 Ryuichi Iwamura 50U8061.02 5720
36738 7590 02/28/2011
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
EXAMINER
ODOM, CURTIS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RYUICHI IWAMURA
____________

Appeal 2009-008011
Application 11/146,340
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-008011
Application 11/146,340

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an automatic power
adjustment in a powerline home entertainment network (Spec. 10:1-2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A home entertainment system, comprising:

at least one server;

at least one client device communicating with the server over a
home entertainment network; and

logic executable by at least one of the server and client device
for establishing multimedia stream transmitted power such that
at least one reception metric at the client device is maintained
between upper and lower values.

REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-17, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kurobe (US 2005/0018784 A1) and
Getchell (US 6,697,487 B1).
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Kurobe, Getchell, and Damnjanovic (US 2003/0050084
A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Kurobe, Getchell, and Schramm (US
2002/0110138 A1).
The Examiner finds Kurobe teaches all the features of the independent
claims except for establishing multimedia stream transmitted power for
Appeal 2009-008011
Application 11/146,340

3
maintaining a signal-to-noise (SNR) metric between upper and lower values,
but that Getchell teaches this feature (Ans. 4).
Appellant contends Kurobe cannot be combined with Getchell
because the power line communication (PLC) network of Kurobe would not
function if a constrained SNR band taught by the telecommunications
network of Getchell was employed in Kurobe. That is, the noise and
impedance in Kurobe would vary wildly and unpredictably if the SNR was
constrained between upper and lower values (App. Br. 7-8).
The Examiner responds the combination of Kurobe and Getchell is
legitimate because Kurobe states in paragraph 0210 that “‘numerous other
modifications and variations can be devised without departing from the
scope of the invention’” thus making it “‘ready for improvement’” (Ans.
12). We do not agree. As asserted by Appellant, the standard boilerplate in
the application does not mean Kurobe was ready for improvement in the
manner taught by Getchell (Reply Br. 1-2). That is, we agree the Examiner
asserted no convincing reason, in light of Appellant’s arguments, for
combining the two references.

DECISION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED
kis
ROGITZ & ASSOCIATES
750 B STREET
SUITE 3120
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101