Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310563385 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUN LI, ALTON KEEL, WEN GAO, and SHAILY VERMA ____________ Appeal 2010-003578 Application 10/563,385 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003578 Application 10/563,385 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-12, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. A method for achieving wireless communications in a network having at least one macro cell for communicating both voice and data with a mobile communications device across a first wireless link and, at least one micro cell, with a smaller coverage area and higher capacity per user than the macro cell, for communicating data with the mobile communications device across a second wireless communication link, the method comprising the steps of: communicating signaling information directly between one micro cell and the one macro cell via a third wireless channel in response to access of the micro cell by the mobile communications device; and controlling the operation of the micro cell responsive to the signaling information, Prior Art Hunt US 2003/0013452 A1 Jan. 16, 2003 Chitrapu US 2003/0185178 A1 Oct. 2, 2003 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunt and Chitrapu. Appeal 2010-003578 Application 10/563,385 3 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “communicating signaling information directly between one micro cell and the one macro cell via a third wireless channel.” The Examiner finds that paragraph 28 of Hunt teaches the third wireless channel. Ans. 7-8. Appellants contend that the third channel taught by Hunt is not wireless. Br. 10-11. Appellants further contend that changing the third channel of Hunt to a wireless channel would eviscerate the higher bandwidth of the pico cells. Br. 11. Paragraph 28 of Hunt teaches direct links between the macro cell and the pico cells. However, paragraph 28 does not teach that the direct link is wireless. The Examiner has not provided a persuasive explanation to show that using a wireless link for the direct link of Hunt would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Independent claim 6 contains a limitation similar to that of claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 and dependent claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hunt and Chitrapu is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation