Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2015

12719359 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2015)

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.
12/719,359 03/08/2010 Bengt Lindoff 4015-6797 / P30740-US2 6919
24112 7590 08/06/2015
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/06/2015 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 BENGT LINDOFF and BO BERNHARDSSON
____________

Appeal 2013-0057871
Application 12/719,359
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-005787
Application 12/719,359

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, and 17–19.
Ans. 5. Claims 4 and 13 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected
base claim. Claims 7 and 16 are cancelled. App. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus where “a
‘micro-sleep’ functionality is selectively enabled in a wireless receiver,
based on an evaluation of channel conditions, traffic characteristics, or
both.” Spec. ¶ 6. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below, with emphasis added to the disputed element:
1. A method of controlling a wireless receiver, the method
comprising:
activating a receiver circuit for a first portion of a first
transmit-time interval, the first portion comprising control
channel data and one or more first reference symbols;
evaluating a channel condition, a data-traffic
characteristic, or both; and
selectively de-activating the receiver circuit for a
second portion of the first transmit-time interval, based on
said evaluating, when the second portion of the first
transmit-time interval does not carry traffic data targeted
to the wireless receiver.
App. Br. 10–14 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2013-005787
Application 12/719,359

3
B. The Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, and 17–19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bitran (US 2010/0284379 A1; Nov.
11, 2010), Ruckriem (US 2008/0051046 A1; Feb. 28, 2008), and Ishii (US
2010/0220652 A1; Sept. 2, 2010). Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejection, Appellants’ arguments in
the Briefs, and the Examiner’s response, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, and 17–19, as
outlined below.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to separate out the feature of evaluating channel conditions in a
diversity-specific receiver, as taught by Ruckriem, and apply the feature to a
non-diversity receiver, as taught by Bitran. App. Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 2–3.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The Examiner provides a
rationale to support modifying the teachings of Bitran to achieve the claimed
subject matter. See Final Act. 5–6. Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s proffered rationale.
Specifically, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to selectively deactivate
Bitran’s receivers based on an evaluation of channel conditions as taught in
Ruckriem. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner also finds the modification would
“enable efficient power operation” for Bitran’s diversity receivers. Id. at 6.
Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be
motivated to combine diversity-receiver teachings from one reference with
Appeal 2013-005787
Application 12/719,359

4
another reference directed to a non-diversity receiver is not persuasive.
Appellants have not identified, and we are unable to find in the record before
us, any evidence that such a combination was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor have
Appellants explained why any perceived challenges would outweigh the
advantages of efficient power operation, as the Examiner explains. Final
Act. 5–6 (citing Bitran ¶¶ 51, 56; Ruckriem ¶¶ 17, 20, 26, 29).
Appellants also argue the combination of references would not result
in the claimed invention because Bitran teaches deactivating a receiver
during different parts of a sub-frame when no traffic data is scheduled,
regardless of channel conditions, and Ruckriem teaches deactivating one or
more branches of a diversity receiver based on channel conditions when
traffic data is scheduled to be received by the receiver. App. Br. 7–8. We
do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because Appellants criticize
Ruckriem for not teaching a feature (deactivating a receiver when no traffic
data is scheduled) that the Examiner relied upon Bitran to show. See Final
Act. 5–6. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they amount to
an attack on the references individually, but the rejection is based on the
references’ combined teaching. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Appellants’ characterization of Ruckriem as teaching only
deactivating one or more branches of a diversity receiver based on channel
conditions when traffic data is scheduled to be received is unpersuasive, as
Appellants’ characterization introduces unnecessary features from Ruckriem
into the proposed combination. More specifically, the Examiner relied upon
Appeal 2013-005787
Application 12/719,359

5
Ruckriem only for teaching deactivating one or more branches of a diversity
receiver based on channel conditions, rather than deactivating a receiver
when no traffic data is scheduled. It is well settled that what a reference
teaches a person of ordinary skill is not limited to what a reference
specifically “talks about” or what is specifically “mentioned” or “written” in
the reference. Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380
(Fed. Cir. 2005). Instead, an artisan must be presumed to know something
about the art apart from what the reference discloses. See In re Jacoby, 309
F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Thus, Appellants’ argument that the
combination of references fails to teach or suggest all the elements of the
claim is unpersuasive.
For the reasons outlined supra, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, and 17–19, which
Appellants did not argue separately. See App. Br. 8–9.

Appeal 2013-005787
Application 12/719,359

6
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15,
and 17–19.
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
kis