Ex Parte Prakash et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2018

14179613 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018)

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.
14/179,613 02/13/2014 Rajat PRAKASH QC131968 8721
12371 7590 01/25/2018
Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
COSME, NATASHA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2018 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJAT PRAKASH, MEHMET YAVUZ,
FARHAD MESHKATI, CHIRAG SURESHBHAI PATEL, and
TAMER ADEL KADOUS
Appeal 2017-007556
Application 14/ 179,61s1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—28, which constitute all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 QUALCOMM Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. See
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007556
Application 14/179,613
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a “transmit power calibration for
matching the coverage of different [wireless] technologies (e.g., radio access
technologies (RATs)) on a common radio node.” Spec. 1 54. Claims 1, 8,
15, and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
(formatting and emphasis added):
1. A method for wireless communication, the method
comprising:
automatically determining first power settings for a first
radio access technology (RAT) based on second power settings
for a second RAT; and
automatically applying the first power settings as power
settings for the first RAT,
wherein automatically determining the first power settings
comprises determining a power setting function reflecting one or
more differences between a first frequency band associated with
the first RAT and a second frequency band associated with the
second RAT,
wherein the power setting function is based on at least one
of a constant offset value, receiver sensitivity of the first RAT,
receiver sensitivity of the second RAT, or a combination thereof
References and Rejections
Claims 1—3, 6, 8—10, 13, 15—17, 20, 22—24, and 27 stand rejected
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brisebois (US
2012/0052793 Al; Mar. 1, 2012), Fujii (US 2009/0088083 Al; Apr. 2,
2009), and Yang (US 2007/0072638 Al; Mar. 29, 2007). Final Act. 3.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations
of Brisebois, Fuku, Yang, and other prior art references. Final Act. 21—32.
2
Appeal 2017-007556
Application 14/179,613
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error, because “what Yang teaches is simply that an AP [Access Point] can
instruct a client station to adjust one or more settings,” in which “the [client
station] transmit power setting is only adjusted based on the corresponding
transmit power setting command in the probe response frame received from
the AP.” App. Br. 7 (quotations omitted). Appellants contend “[sjimply
applying a transmit power setting as received, as in Yang, does not teach or
suggest that the transmit power setting is ‘based on at least one of a constant
offset value, receiver sensitivity of the first RAT, receiver sensitivity of the
second RAT, or a combination thereof’” as recited in independent claim 1.
App. Br. 6.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds
“Yang teaches wherein the power setting function is based on at least one of
a constant offset value, receiver sensitivity of the first RAT, receiver
sensitivity of the second RAT, or a combination thereof.” Final Act. 5
(citing Yang 110). Yang, as cited, discloses that a client station can send a
“probe request frame” to a network access point advertising that the client
station is capable of adjusting one parameter “of the group consisting of
transmit power setting, receiver sensitivity threshold setting and clear
channel assessment threshold setting.” Yang 110. In response, Yang’s
client station will receive a “probe response frame” with one of the
parameter group, and the client station is
configured to adjust[] one of the group consisting of transmit
power setting, receiver sensitivity threshold setting and clear
channel assessment threshold setting responsive to the one of the
group consisting of the transmit power setting, the receiver
3
Appeal 2017-007556
Application 14/179,613
sensitivity threshold setting and the clear channel assessment
threshold setting in the probe response frame.
Id. (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellants that Yang, as quoted above and cited by the
Examiner, does not provide “any indication as to if or how disparate settings
could be used to control one another” (App. Br. 5), and the Examiner’s
response in the Answer comprises “repetitive” and “conclusory statements
that do not even attempt to address the Appellants’ arguments” (Reply
Br. 2). See Ans. 30-36. Moreover, we agree with Appellants that “a careful
reading of Yang reveals only a one-to-one correspondence between like-
named setting pairs.” App. Br. 5. The cited portion of Yang is part of the
brief summary section of the reference, and Yang further discloses—in the
detailed description section—that client station settings are set “to match the
[access point] settings as advertised in the Beacon/Probe-Response frame
before accessing the [access point].” Yang 138; see also Yang 143 (stating
the client station “is expected to follow” the parameters advertised by the
access point). Based on the record before us, we are persuaded by
Appellants that Yang teaches the client station transmit power setting is
adjusted to match the corresponding transmit power setting, as sent from the
access point. See App. Br. 7—8.
Thus, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred finding Yang teaches
or suggests the power setting function is “based on” at least one of the
recited one or more additional parameters of independent claim 1. The
Examiner does not rely on the other cited references for the “based on”
limitation. See Ans. 32. As such, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited references teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1, and
the limitations similarly recited by independent claims 8, 15, and 22. We do
4
Appeal 2017-007556
Application 14/179,613
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims, or the
claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—28 is reversed.
REVERSED
5