Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

13299927 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/299,927 11/18/2011
66547 7590 08/04/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyo Jin LEE
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.
1398-439
(YPF201110-0009)
9634
EXAMINER
TSVEY, GENNADIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYO JIN LEE, YOUN SUN KIM, JOON YOUNG CHO,
JU HO LEE, JIN KYU HAN, and YOUNG BUM KIM
Appeal2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co, Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to relates generally to mobile
communication and, in particular, to an uplink power control method and
apparatus for efficiently controlling uplink transmission power in a
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) based mobile communication system
including a plurality of base stations. Abstract; Spec. 1: 14--17.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. An uplink power control method of a terminal in a mobile
communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, by the terminal from a base station, a location
parameter corresponding to at least one antenna selected for the
terminal from among a plurality of antennas distributed in a
service area of the base station, each of the plurality of antennas
being connected to the base station, and the location parameter
being determined by the base station based on a distance between
the at least one antenna and the terminal; and
calculating uplink power based on the location parameter.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1--4 and 6-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR 10-2009-0088086; Aug. 19, 2009) and
Raleigh et al. (US 5,809,422; Sept. 15, 1998).
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jang, Raleigh, and Damnjanovic et al. (US 2009/0245194
Al; Oct. 1, 2009) or alternatively Bourdeaut et al. (US 2009/0303912 Al;
Dec. 10, 2009).
2
Appeal 2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We emphasize the following.
I. Claim 1
The Examiner finds Jang teaches a "location parameter," as claimed,
in the form of an EIRP (Efficient Isotropic Radiation Power) value
corresponding an antenna node, and "calculating uplink power" based on
this EIRP value. Final Act. 3. The Examiner acknowledges that Jang's
EIRP value is not determined based on a distance between the at least one
antenna and the terminal. Id. at 4. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner
further relies on Raleigh's teaching of the selection of a suitable remote site
station (the claimed "antenna") for a mobile unit based on signal strength
between the mobile unit and the remote site station, and transmitting a
frequency value for a channel for this remote site station. Id. at 4---6. The
Examiner concludes that, based on these teachings, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to transmit an EIRP of an antenna
that is selected based on distance over a frequency channel for that specific
antenna. Id. at 6.
Referring to Raleigh, Appellants argue that selecting a suitable remote
site station based on signal strength is not analogous to selecting that station
based on distance. App. Br. 6. We are unpersuaded by this argument for the
3
Appeal 2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
reasons stated by the Examiner. See Ans. 29--30. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner that signal strength between the mobile unit and the
remote site stations is based on a number of factors, one of which is the
distance between the two. Id. at 29. Therefore, we agree that the selection
of a remote site station based on signal strength is also based on distance.
Appellants further argue that even if the remote site station is selected
based on signal strength (thus, based on distance) the frequency value is not
itself determined by signal strength. App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3.
Again, we are unpersuaded. We agree with the Examiner that frequency
value for the channel uniquely corresponds to the selected remote site station
and identifies that station. Ans. 32-33. Therefore, because we agree that the
remote site station is selected based on distance, we also agree with the
Examiner that the frequency value of that remote site station is based on
distance.
Appellants argue Jang' s EIRP value is not determined based on
distance between the selected antenna and the terminal. App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2. Appellants also argue Raleigh's frequency value is not used to
calculate uplink power. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. Both of these arguments
are unpersuasive because both attack the references individually and fail to
address the Examiner's findings as a whole. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Raleigh's frequency value, not
Jang' s EIRP value, as teaching location parameter determined based on
distance. Final Act. 4---6. Similarly, the Examiner relies on Jang's EIRP
value, not Raleigh's frequency value, as being used to calculate uplink
power. Id. at 3.
4
Appeal 2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
Appellants argue the combination of Jang and Raleigh teach the
transmission of two parameters and, thus, the combination fails to teach "£!
single parameter that is determined based on a distance between an antenna
and a terminal, and upon which calculation of uplink power is based."
Reply Br. 2. We disagree. "The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Although the Examiner relies on two
different parameters to teach the features of the claimed location parameter,
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined these teachings in a
rote manner such that the resulting combination necessarily led to two
separate parameters. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. . . . A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007).
Instead, we find that it would have been obvious to combine aspects of the
two parameters together in a single parameter, or as the Examiner finds, to
modify Jang's EIRP value, which is used to calculate uplink power, such
that it is transmitted over a frequency channel of an antenna selected based
on distance, as taught by Raleigh. Ans. 35.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7,
12, and 14, and dependent claims 3-6, 9-11, 13, and 15 for which
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability. See App. Br.
7, 9.
5
Appeal 2015-000318
Application 13/299,927
II. Claims 2 and 8
Appellants argue "the fact that distance may affect reception strength
(RSSI) is not sufficient to establish that path loss is inherently based on a
distance . . . . More specifically ... the distance measurement is not
necessarily present in the calculation of the path loss using the signal
strength." App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue the Examiner relies on
inherency in rejecting claim 2 without providing any rationale or evidence
tending to show inherency. Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds Jang
calculates path loss and that this calculation is based, in part, on signal
strength. Ans. 37-39. As explained above, signal strength is, in part, based
on distance. See id. at 38. Thus, Jang's calculation of path loss is
necessarily based on distance between at least one antenna and the terminal.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 8, which
were argued together as a group. App. Br. 7-8.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) are
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6