Ex parte Otten

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2002

08679848 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID D. OTTEN
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
and 2. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 14), claims
1 and
2 were amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a communication system
for preventing the transmissions of a mobile unit in proximity
to a communications service from interfering with the
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
2
transmissions from the communications service that have
priority over the mobile unit.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A communication system for permitting the
communications of a mobile unit in proximity to a
communications service having priority over the
communications of the mobile unit, said communication
system comprising:
a priority service unit for providing
communications services including a receiver for
receiving signals in a frequency band and a
transmitter collocated with the priority service
unit receiver for transmitting signals in a
frequency band;
a mobile communications unit including a
transmitter for transmitting in the frequency band
in which said priority service unit receives
signals;
an interference zone surrounding said priority
receiver such that the transmission by said mobile
unit in said interference zone interferes with the
operation of said priority service unit;
warning signal means connected to said priority
service unit for transmitting a warning signal from
the priority service unit transmitter at a frequency
band different than the frequency band of the
signals received by the priority service unit;
warning signal receiver means connected to said
mobile communications unit for receiving said
warning signal;
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
3
interference zone detection means connected to
said warning signal receiver means for processing
said warning signal and for determining if said
mobile unit is located in said interference zone;
and
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
4
interference elimination means connected to said
interference zone detection means for eliminating
the interference of said mobile unit with said
priority service unit.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Klandrud et al. (Klandrud), “Beacon Control of Radio
Transmitters to Reduce Radio Frequency Interference,”
Motorola, Inc. Technical Developments, Vol. 16, pp. 130-32
(August 1992).
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Klandrud.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 18 and 20)
and the answer (paper number 19) for the respective positions
of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and
2.
Klandrud recognizes that out-of-band radio frequency (RF)
emanations from a mobile unit satellite radio 2 or 3 (Figure
1) may cause interference to a sensitive receiver (e.g., radio
astronomy (RA) site 1) if the mobile unit is too close to the
sensitive receiver (page 130, column 1). Klandrud uses one or
more beacon units 5 and 6 to transmit RF warning signals 7 and
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
5
8, respectively, to any mobile units that might be in the area
(page 130, column 1). According to Klandrud (page 130, column
2), “[t]he beacons 5, 6 are located far enough away from the
RA site so that they do not cause interference with the RA
receiver.” If a mobile unit does not receive a warning beacon
message, then the user of the mobile unit assumes that
transmission from the mobile unit will not interfere with the
sensitive receiver RA (page 130, column 2). On the other
hand, “[i]f a mobile unit 2 can receive a beacon transmission
7 or 8, then the mobile unit must decide if it is acceptable
to transmit” (page 130, column 2).
Based upon the statement in Klandrud (page 130, column 1)
that “[a]ny or all of the concepts described herein can be
used to protect a receiver (stationary or mobile) from
interfering units (mobile or stationary),” the examiner
reaches the conclusion (answer, page 4) that Klandrud is “not
specific to a radio astronomy service,” and that “Klandrud et
al[.] does indeed suggests that other communications systems
can be implemented using the same concept of radio frequency
interference reduction.”
We agree with the examiner’s inference that both Klandrud
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
6
and the disclosed and claimed invention have “radio frequency
interference reduction” as an underlying concept. Our
agreement with the examiner, however, does not extend to any
inference by the examiner that the implementation of that
concept by the disclosed and claimed invention is the same as
the implementation of that concept by Klandrud. In Klandrud,
the warning signal transmitted by the beacon units 5 and 6 is
transmitted at a frequency that can interfere with the RA
receiver 1. As indicated supra, that is why the beacons 5 and
6 are located far enough away from the RA receiver 1 to avoid
interference. Thus, Klandrud neither teaches nor would have
suggested a warning signal means connected to either the RA
receiver (claim 1) or the mobile units (claim 2) that
transmits at a frequency band different than the frequency
band signals received by the RA receiver (reply brief, page
7). More importantly, the possibility of interference between
the beacons and the RA receiver requires that they not be
“collocated” (claim 1) (brief, pages 13 and 14). Lastly, the
mobile units in Klandrud would never transmit any type of
warning signal to the RA receiver because such a signal would
interfere with the normal operation of the RA receiver (claim
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
7
2) (brief, page 15).
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
8
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2
is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
9
DRUMMOND & DUCKWORTH
4590 MACARTHUR BLVD.
SUITE 500
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660