Ex Parte Liu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2008

10112098 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JUNG-TAO LIU
____________________

Appeal 2008-1132
Application 10/112,098
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: June 25, 2008
____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1 to 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will sustain the rejection.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant has invented a method of communication that comprises
determining a plurality of transmission powers for a corresponding plurality
of antennas, and transmitting at least one signal over at least one
transmission path using the determined transmission powers. The at least
one transmission path is determined in response to characterizing an air
interface (Fig. 2; Specification 5 to 9).
Appeal 2008-1132
Application 10/112,098
2
Claim 6 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
6. A method of communication comprising:
determining a plurality of transmission powers for a corresponding
plurality of antennas; and
transmitting at least one signal over at least one transmission path
using the determined transmission powers, the at least one transmission path
determined in response to characterizing an air interface, the at least one
transmission path defined by the plurality of antennas.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Farsakh US 6,317,612 B1 Nov. 13, 2001
Boros US 6,615,024 B1 Sep. 2, 2003
(filed Apr. 20, 1999)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Farsakh and Boros.
ISSUE
Appellant contends inter alia that the applied references are silent as
to determining a plurality of transmission powers for a corresponding
plurality of antennas as set forth in the claims on appeal (Br. 5). The issue
before us, therefore, is whether the applied prior art teaches or would have
suggested to the skilled artisan a method of communicating that includes the
step of determining a plurality of transmission powers for a corresponding
plurality of antennas?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Farsakh describes a mobile communications system with an adaptive
antenna that has a corresponding plurality of antennas (col. 7, ll. 32 to 34).
Appeal 2008-1132
Application 10/112,098
3
The mobile communications system is characterized by a GSM air interface
communications protocol (col. 6, l. 66 to col. 7, l. 4).
Boros describes a method of communication that uses a plurality of
antennas in an adaptive antenna (Fig. 1; Abstract; col. 1, ll. 18 to 21; col. 9,
ll. 34 to 37; col. 11, ll. 27 to 31; col. 12, ll. 18 to 35). Boros determines a
plurality of transmission powers for the corresponding plurality of antennas,
and transmits at least one signal over at least one transmission path using the
determined transmission powers (col. 1, ll. 28 to 35; col. 5, ll. 61 to 66; col.
14, ll. 53 to 59). The at least one transmission path is determined in
response to characterizing the air interface used in Boros as a “Personal
Handyphone (PHS) air interface communication protocol” (col. 11, ll. 31 to
34). A GSM air interface is mentioned as an alternative air interface to PHS
(col. 20, ll. 37 to 54).
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.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
ANALYSIS
Although Farsakh does not expressly state that a plurality of
transmission powers are determined for the noted plurality of adaptive
antennas, we find that the skilled artisan would have known that the plurality
of adaptive antennas would have a plurality of transmission powers.
Nothing in the claims on appeal precludes the plurality of adaptive antennas
Appeal 2008-1132
Application 10/112,098
4
from transmitting with the same transmission power. In any event, as
indicated supra, Boros provides evidence that it is well known in the art to
determine a plurality of transmission powers for a corresponding plurality of
adaptive antennas.
In view of the collectively known teachings, we find that the
Examiner has set forth a rational basis for a finding of obviousness.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has established the obviousness of claims 1 to 31.
ORDER
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 31 is affirmed.
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

gvw

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042