Ex Parte Michl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12446886 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/446,886 0412312009
30671 7590 02/23/2016
DITTHA VONG & STEINER, P,C
Keth Ditthavong
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Michl
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.
P2274USOO 9769
EXAMINER
DEAN, RAYMOND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docket@dcpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS MICHL and ADRIAN SCHUMACHER
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention measures and tests a mobile telephone device
by measuring a selected operating parameter (e.g., a Channel Quality
Indicator (CQI)) by varying a selected variable parameter, such as a
Transport Combination Format Indicator (TFCI) within a measurement
interval. See generally Spec. 10-11; Fig. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A measurement method for a mobile telephone system,
said method comprising:
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
selecting an operating parameter to be measured by an
operating parameter selector;
selecting a variable parameter;
setting a measurement parameter by setting a
measurement interval;
measuring by a measurement system the selected
operating parameter to be measured dependent upon the
selected variable parameter by varying the selected variable
parameter within the measurement interval; and
displaying on a display unit measured results;
wherein either a transmission power or a Transport
Combination Format Indicator is selected as the variable
parameter, and
wherein a Channel Quality Indicator is selected as the
operating parameter to be measured.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over T. Braun, Application Note JCM62, Rohde &
Schwartz (Nov. 2005) ("1CM62") and Provvedi (US 2006/0234741 Al; Oct.
19, 2006). Ans. 3---6. 1
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over 1CM62, Provvedi, and Hayashi (US 2005/0124296 Al;
June 9, 2005). Ans. 6-7.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 8,
2013 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed June 10, 2013
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 17, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER 1 CM62 AND PROVVEDI
The Examiner finds that 1 CM62 (1) selects an operating parameter,
namely the CQI; (2) sets a measurement parameter by setting a measurement
interval in view of the measurements displayed in the CQI conformance test
in Figure 13; and (3) displays measured results in that figure. Ans. 3--4.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that 1 CM62 does not ( 1) select a
variable parameter, and (2) measure the selected operating parameter by
varying the selected virtual device within the measurement interval, the
Examiner cites Provvedi for teaching these features in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4--5. According to the Examiner,
Provvedi's transport TFCis are selected "variable parameters" that are varied
across a range of channel qualities within a measurement interval. Ans. 4,
7-8.
Appellants argue that not only does 1 CM62 not allow setting a
measurement interval or selecting a variable parameter, but Provvedi is not
directed to a measurement method to test a mobile station. App. Br. 9-10.
According to Appellants, Provvedi's variable and operating parameters,
namely an existing channel's quality and TFC values, respectively, are
actually "inverted" compared to Appellants' application. App. Br. 10-11;
Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants add that Provvedi's relation between CQI and
TFCI is a well-known function, namely by defining a set of TFCs, and then
calculating a channel quality requirement to use each TFC effectively. App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3--4. As such, Appellants contend, Provvedi does not
determine CQI by varying TFCI as the Examiner proposes. Id.
3
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
ISSUES
(1) Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under § 103 by
finding that 1 CM62 and Provvedi collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) setting a measurement interval, and (2) measuring a selected
CQI operating parameter dependent upon a selected TFCI variable
parameter by varying the variable parameter within the interval?
(2) Is the Examiner's combining the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing a key recited limitation, namely "setting a
measurement interval." The term "setting" is undefined in the Specification,
so we interpret the term with its plain meaning. The term "set" is defined, in
pertinent part, as "to put into a specified state." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARYOFTHEENGLISHLANGUAGE 1592 (4th ed. 2006) ("AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY").
Based on this construction, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner's position that 1 CM62 at least suggests setting a measurement
interval in view of the CQI conformance test results displayed in Figure 13
which includes, among other things, 2000 measured subframes and median
CQI. Ans. 7 (noting these indications). Notably, Appellants acknowledge
that 1 CM62 discloses a measurement interval, but that it is fixed to the
described test process and limited to a predefined range. App. Br. 8. But
nothing in the claim precludes 1 CM62' s measurement interval, for it was
placed in a specified state, or "set," at least with respect to the particular test.
4
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
To the extent that Appellants contend that 1 CM62 does not set a
measurement interval that is selected from different such intervals by a user
or otherwise (see App. Br. 8-9), such arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim.
Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on
Provvedi for at least suggesting measuring a selected CQI operating
parameter dependent upon a selected TFCI variable parameter by varying
the variable parameter within the interval. Ans. 4, 7-8 (citing Provvedi,
Abstract; i-fi-f 11-21, 35, 42--43; Fig. 1). The term "measuring" is undefined
in the Specification, so we interpret the term with its plain meaning. The
term "measure" is defined, in pertinent part, as "[ d]imensions, quantity, or
capacity as ascertained by comparison with a standard." AMERICAN
HERITAGE DICTIONARY, at 1087.
As Appellants acknowledge, Provvedi (1) defines a set of TFCs, and
then (2) calculates a channel quality requirement to use each TFC
effectively. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Provvedi i-fi-f 12-13). As the
Examiner explains, this process effectively yields a linear relationship
between channel quality and TFCI: a low TFCI corresponds to low channel
quality, and a high TFCI corresponds to high channel quality. Ans. 8.
Therefore, Provvedi at least suggests that as TFCis are varied in this
process, a corresponding channel quality value is obtained-a
correspondence that effectively measures that value with respect to a
particular channel quality standard. Accord Ans. 4 (noting that Provvedi's
TFCI varies across a range of channel qualities). That Provvedi ranks the
TFCis in increasing order of required link quality, and sends the TFCis to a
mobile station in that order in paragraphs 42, 43, and 50 only further bolsters
5
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
the Examiner's conclusion in this regard. In short, we see no error in the
Examiner's position at least to the extent that varying a selected TFCI
variable parameter within an interval to measure a selected CQI operating
parameter, namely with respect to a particular channel quality standard,
would have been obvious in light of Provvedi, particularly when combined
with 1 CM62. Given these collective teachings, we see no reason why
Provvedi' s measurement could not occur during 1 CM62' s measurement
interval, particularly in view of the scope and breadth of the term as noted
previously.
Lastly, we see no error in the Examiner's proposed combination, for
the Examiner's enhancement to 1 CM62 with Provvedi uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants' arguments regarding the cited references' individual
shortcomings do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is
based on the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co.,
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the Examiner's
combining the teachings of 1 CM62 and Provvedi is supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion.
THE REJECTION OVER 1 CM62, PROVVEDI, AND HAYASHI
Although Appellants nominally argue the Examiner's rejection of
claims 7 and 14 separately, Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those
for claim 1, and allege that Hayashi fails to cure those purported
6
Appeal2013-009318
Application 12/446,886
deficiencies. App. Br. 6, 12-13. We find these arguments unpersuasive for
the reasons noted previously.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
kme
7