Ex Parte Rajkotia

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2009

10764175 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PURVA R. RAJKOTIA
____________

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: November 20, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12, 19, 21-25, and 27-30. Claims 13-18 have been

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

2
indicated as containing allowable subject matter. Ans. 2; Reply Br. 3.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a system for efficiently decreasing the time
required to determine whether a call connection between a base station and a
mobile station in a wireless network has failed during a call set-up
procedure. During call set-up, the base station sends null frames to the
mobile station, and the mobile station sends preamble frames to the base
station. If the base station detects missing preamble frames, it then increases
the power of null frames transmitted to the mobile station. As a result, the
more powerful null frames increase the likelihood of a successful call
connection between the base station and the mobile station.2 Claim 1 is
illustrative with the key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. For use in a wireless network, a base station capable of releasing a
call between said base station and a mobile station during a call set-up
procedure, said base station comprising:

a preamble frame detector capable of detecting preamble frames
transmitted to said base station by said mobile station during said call set-up
procedure; and

a transmit power controller capable of adjusting a power level of null
frames transmitted by said base station during said call set-up procedure.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 30,
2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 28, 2007; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed January 30, 2008.

2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ 008-10.
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

3

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Chun US 2002/0068586 A1 June 6, 2002
Kim US 6,418,322 B1 July 9, 2002
Brooks US 2002/0090947 A1 July 11, 2002
Raaf US 2004/0029604 A1 Feb. 12, 2004
(filed Oct. 5, 2001)
Appellant’s admitted prior art in Figure 3 and ¶ 0043 of the present
application (“APA”).

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 7-93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over APA and Kim. Ans. 4-12.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over APA, Kim, and Brooks. Ans. 12-17.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over APA, Kim, Brooks, and Chun. Ans. 17-18.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 19, 21, 25, and 274 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over APA and Raaf. Ans. 18-22.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over APA, Raaf, and Brooks. Ans. 22-24.

3 Although the Examiner includes claims 13-15 in this rejection, the
Examiner nevertheless indicates that these claims are allowable. Compare
Ans. 4 and 9-12 with Ans. 2. Accordingly, we presume that the Examiner
did not intend to reject claims 13-15, and we deem the Examiner’s error
harmless. We treat the rejections of claims 16-18 similarly since the
Examiner likewise indicated that these claims were allowable. See Ans. 2.

4 Although the Examiner erroneously includes cancelled claims 20 and 26 in
this rejection (Ans. 18), we deem this error harmless and omit those claims
here for clarity and brevity.
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

4
6. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over APA, Raaf, Brooks, and Chun. Ans. 24.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER APA AND KIM
Regarding representative claim 1,5 the Examiner finds that
Appellant’s description of a known call set-up procedure in Figure 3 and
Paragraph 043 of the present application (APA) discloses all of the claimed
subject matter except for the base station to have a transmit power controller
that is capable of adjusting a power level of transmitted null frames. The
Examiner, however, cites Kim for this feature in concluding that the claim
would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5.
Appellant argues that while Kim controls power on a forward channel,
Kim does not discuss any capability to do so during the call set-up
procedure as claimed. Rather, Appellant contends, Kim first establishes a
call between a mobile station and a base station, and then controls the
forward power according to link quality. Based on this sequence, Appellant
reasons that Kim’s system must establish a call before any power control
occurs—a requirement that runs counter to the claimed invention which
adjusts power level during the call set-up procedure. App. Br. 14-17; Reply
Br. 10-12; emphases added.

5 Appellant argues the following claim groups separately: (1) independent
claims 1 and 7 (App. Br. 14-17), and (2) claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 (App. Br. 17-
18). Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 2 as representative of each group,
respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

5
The Examiner, however, notes that claim 1 calls for the transmit
power controller to be capable of adjusting power during the call set-up
procedure. As such, the Examiner contends, the disputed limitation is fully
met so long as the prior art controller has the ability to perform this
power adjustment. According to the Examiner, Kim has such a power
adjustment capability not only during the call set-up procedure, but at any
other time. Ans. 25-26.
Regarding representative claim 2, Appellant argues that the prior art
does not teach or suggest increasing a null frame power level responsive to
detecting at least one missing preamble as claimed. App. Br. 17-18; Reply
Br. 12-13. According to Appellant, Kim does not teach or suggest that the
power measurement report messages (PMRMs) are preamble frames, let
alone that they are transmitted responsive to receiving null frames. Id. The
Examiner, however, equates Kim’s PMRMs to the recited preamble frames,
and notes that they are transmitted responsive to receiving forward frames
(i.e., “null frames”). Ans. 26.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 103, has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by finding
that APA and Kim collectively teach or suggest:
(1) a transmit power controller capable of adjusting a power level of
transmitted null frames during a call set-up procedure as recited in claim 1?
(2) increasing the power level of transmitted null frames responsive to
detecting at least one missing preamble frame as recited in claim 2?

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:

APA
1. The Examiner’s findings regarding APA’s description of a known
call set-up procedure involving a mobile station and a base station (Ans. 4)
are undisputed. See App. Br. 14-17; see also Reply Br. 10-12. We therefore
adopt these findings as our own.

Kim
2. Kim discloses a method for forward power control in a cellular
system with a base station and a mobile station. The mobile station
periodically informs the base station regarding the number of forward
frames and erroneous frames via a “power measurement report message”
(PMRM). Kim, Abstract; col. 5, ll. 13-20.
3. As shown in Figure 4, a call is first established between the base
station and mobile station, and the mobile station reports the PMRM to the
base station (step s1). Then, forward power is controlled according to the
received PMRM parameters (step s2). Then, the base station checks whether
another PMRM is received (step s3). If appropriate, the power control
parameters are changed (step s4), and power control is performed according
to those parameters (step s2). Otherwise, another call is established between
the base station and mobile station (step s1), and the process is repeated.
Kim, col. 5, l. 60 − col. 6, l. 5; Fig. 4.
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

7
4. If a PMRM is not received from the mobile station within a time
period corresponding to 56 frames, the base station changes the power
control parameters to increase the digital gain to increase the transmission
power assigned to the mobile station. Thus, the forward link is improved,
and the mobile station can then receive good forward frames via the
improved link. Kim, col. 5, ll. 28-37.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). If the
Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the Appellant to
overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness
is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
For patentability, apparatus claims must be distinguished from the
prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, even if a prior art device is used for a
different purpose, it will nevertheless meet the claim if it expressly or
inherently contains all claimed structural features and is capable of
performing the intended function. See id. Accord In re Simpson, 2004 WL
1375703, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (noting that Schreiber
affirmed the Board’s inherency decision based on capability) (emphasis
added).

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

8
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
The first issue before us turns on capability. Simply put, this issue
hinges on whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Kim’s controller would have been capable of adjusting power level of
transmitted null frames during a call set-up procedure as claimed.
It is undisputed that APA discloses a known call set-up procedure
involving a mobile station and a base station. FF 1. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that APA does not disclose a transmit power controller, the
Examiner nevertheless relies on Kim for this teaching. Ans. 4-5.
Although Kim establishes a call before controlling power (FF 3) as
Appellant indicates (App. Br. 15-16), we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that Kim’s system would nevertheless be capable
of adjusting power during call set-up if it were so employed.
Notably, Kim’s power control is based on the reported PMRM in
conjunction with the call. FF 3. Although this report reflects the most
recent measurements that are reported via the call (see FF 2-3), we
nevertheless see no reason why Kim’s system could not control power
during call set-up based on, among other things, other measurements (e.g.,
via an earlier PMRM), parameters, or messages. Nor has Appellant
provided any evidence on this record proving that Kim’s system would be
incapable of controlling power during APA’s call set-up procedure (FF 1)—
evidence that is crucial to rebut the Examiner’s contrary findings. Absent
such evidence, and given Kim’s power control capabilities (FF 3), we see no
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

9
reason why Kim’s system would not have been capable of adjusting power
during APA’s call set-up procedure if it were so employed. See Schreiber,
128 F.3d at 1477-78.
Lastly, we emphasize that having the capability to perform a
particular function is quite different than actually performing the function—
a distinction made clear by comparing Appellant’s independent claim 1 with
independent claim 13. Unlike claim 1, claim 13 recites a method of actually
performing the steps commensurate with those that the base station is merely
capable of performing in claim 1.
Claim differentiation principles alone suggest that Appellant
envisioned that claims 1 and 13 have different scope and meaning:
otherwise, the claims would be superfluous.6 Notably, the Examiner’s
indication that only method claims 13-18 contain allowable subject matter
(Ans. 2) speaks volumes as to the distinction between (1) the capability to
perform a function, and (2) actually performing the function.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claim 7 which falls with
claim 1.

6 “The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that each
claim in a patent has a different scope. . . . The difference in meaning and
scope between claims is presumed to be significant to the extent that the
absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim
superfluous.” Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343,
1351 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

10
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9
We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
2. First, we see no error in the Examiner’s position that Kim’s PMRM at
least suggests detecting missing preamble frames (Ans. 26), particularly
since the PMRM (1) effectively informs the base station of the number of
forward and erroneous frames (FF 2), and (2) is used as a basis to control the
power level (FF 3-4). Notably, Kim’s base station increases transmission
power when the PMRM is not received for a time period corresponding to
56 frames (FF 4)—a circumstance that at least suggests that frames (e.g.,
preamble frames) could be missing from the mobile station. As a result,
Kim’s mobile station can receive good forward frames by virtue of the
improved link (id.)—a feature that at least suggests increasing a power level
of null frames as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 2. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, and claims 3, 8, and 9 which fall
with claim 2.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OF CLAIMS 4-6 AND 10-12
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of (1)
claims 4, 5, 10, and 11 over APA, Kim, and Brooks (Ans. 12-17), and (2)
claims 6 and 12 over APA, Kim, Brooks, and Chun (Ans. 17-18). Although
Appellant nominally argues these rejections separately, Appellant reiterates
the same arguments we considered above regarding the prior art’s alleged
failure to teach power control functions during call setup. See App. Br.
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

11
19-20. We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons
previously discussed. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 4-6 and
10-12 for the same reasons discussed above.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER APA AND RAAF
Regarding representative claim 19,7 the Examiner finds that APA
discloses all the claimed subject matter except for the mobile station having
a transmit power control program capable of adjusting a power level of
transmitted preamble frames. The Examiner, however, cites Raaf for
teaching increasing power of preamble frames responsive to detecting
missing acknowledgement messages (i.e., “null frames”) in concluding the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 18-20, 27, and 28.
Although Appellant acknowledges that Raaf teaches increasing power
“when there is no reception of an acknowledgement message,” Appellant
nonetheless contends that Raaf does not teach or suggest that this increase is
responsive to detecting at least one missing null frame as claimed. App. Br.
21; Reply Br. 14-15. In this regard, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s
equating Raaf’s acknowledgement message with the recited “null frame.”
Id.
Despite acknowledging that Raaf teaches increasing power “when
there is no reception of an acknowledgement message,” (App. Br. 21; Reply
Br. 15), Appellant nevertheless contends that Raaf teaches away from
increasing power when an acknowledgement message is not received. App.

7 Appellant argues claims 19, 21, 25, and 27 together as a group. See App.
Br. 21-22. Accordingly, we select claim 19 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

12
Br. 22; Reply Br. 15. In this regard, Appellant cites Raaf’s ability to
retransmit a preamble with the same low power when an acknowledgement
message is not received in Paragraph 0037 of the reference. Id.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 19 by finding that APA and Raaf collectively teach or
suggest a mobile station with a transmit power control program capable of
increasing a power level of transmitted preamble frames responsive to
detecting at least one missing null frame as claimed?

(2) Does Raaf teach away from this approach?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following additional findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:

Raaf
5. Raaf discloses a system for initiating communication that gradually
increases the power that a mobile station uses to transmit a preamble to a
base station. The mobile station’s power is gradually increased until:
(1) a base station receives or detects the preamble;
(2) the base station sends a corresponding acknowledgement message
to the mobile station; and
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

13
(3) the mobile station receives or detects the acknowledgement
message.
Raaf, Abstract; ¶¶ 0001-02, 0030, 0033; Figs. 1 and 2.
6. As shown in Figure 2, the preamble’s calculated ideal power is
compared to the maximum and minimum permissible powers. Depending
on this comparison, the preamble is transmitted with either (1) the calculated
ideal power; (2) a power between the calculated ideal power and the
minimum power; or (3) the maximum power. Raaf, ¶¶ 0033-39; Fig. 2
(steps 21-28).
7. In scenario (2) above, when the calculated ideal power is less than
or equal to the maximum power, the calculated ideal power is also compared
to the minimum power. If the calculated ideal power is less than the
minimum power, the preamble power is set to a value between the calculated
ideal power and the minimum power. Raaf, ¶¶ 0036-37; Fig. 2 (steps 23, 25,
26, and 28).
8. “A consequence of this step can be that transmission is repeated
several times with the same power which is between the calculated ideal
power and the minimum power, depending on how far the
Preamble_Initial_Power determined by the open-loop power control is
below the specified minimum power.” Raaf, ¶ 0037.
9. An unsuccessful transmission (no reception of an
acknowledgement message) could be caused by (1) a collision on a
transmission channel; (2) interference; (3) attenuation; or (4) an error in
transmitting the acknowledgement message. “This is why it is appropriate
to retransmit the preamble with the same low power.” Raaf, ¶ 0037.
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

14
10. If an acknowledgement message is not received within a certain
time period, the ideal power is incremented by a certain amount, and the
process is repeated. Raaf, ¶¶ 0041-44; Fig. 2 (steps 29, 211-14, and 23).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining certain known
elements, discovery of a successful means of combining them is more likely
to be nonobvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary
skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the
path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from
the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely
disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these
alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the alternatives).

ANALYSIS
We will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 19 over
APA and Raaf. First, we see no error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 27-
28) that detecting or receiving acknowledgement messages in Raaf at least
suggests detecting or receiving associated null frames sent to the mobile
station. Although Raaf does not specify the format of this acknowledgement
message, we nevertheless see no reason why such a message could not
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

15
contain null frames, particularly since the base station sends this message to
the mobile station to confirm that the base station received the preamble.
See FF 5.
Since Raaf increases the power that the mobile station uses to transmit
a preamble when an acknowledgement message is not received (FF 5 and
10), we see no reason why Raaf’s transmit power control program would not
at least be capable of adjusting this power responsive to detecting at least
one missing null frame as claimed—including those frames associated with
acknowledgement messages. See Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78. Notably,
Appellant has provided no evidence on this record proving that Raaf’s
program would be incapable of this power adjustment.
Nor are we persuaded that Raaf teaches away from increasing power
of preamble frames responsive to detecting at least one missing null frame as
Appellant argues (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15). First, this argument is
undercut by Appellant’s own admission that Raaf teaches increasing power
when “when there is no reception of an acknowledgement message” (App.
Br. 21; Reply Br. 15). Nevertheless, as we indicated previously, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 27-28) that detecting or receiving
acknowledgement messages in Raaf at least suggests detecting or receiving
associated null frames sent to the mobile station.
Raaf does, however, indicate that a preamble can be retransmitted
with “the same low power” when an acknowledgement message is not
received due to various transmission factors (FF 9) as Appellant argues
(App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 15). But this retransmission is discussed in the
context of a particular scenario when calculated ideal power is less than the
minimum power. See FF 6-9. In this circumstance, the preamble power is
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

16
set to a value between the calculated ideal power and the minimum power.
FF 7. Raaf explains that this situation can result in repeated transmissions
with the same power depending on the difference between the initial power
and the specified minimum power. FF 8; emphasis added. And if these
transmissions are unsuccessful, they can be repeated with the same low
power. FF 9.
Despite using the same power, however, these retransmissions would
hardly discourage skilled artisans from increasing power responsive to
detecting at least one missing null frame, particularly since the very purpose
of Raaf is to increase power when acknowledgement messages—and their
associated null frames—are not received. See FF 5 and 10. As such, the
retransmissions in Raaf associated with the intermediate preamble power
scenario noted above (FF 7-9) do not teach away from Raaf’s overall power
control approach—an approach predicated on increasing power responsive
to not receiving acknowledgement messages. See FF 5 and 10; see also
Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990; Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201 (noting that merely
disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these
alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage the alternatives).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 19. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claims 21, 25, and 27
which fall with claim 19.

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

17
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER APA, RAAF, AND BROOKS
Regarding representative claim 22,8 the Examiner cites Brooks for
teaching a detecting a dropped call by using a “fade timer” for timing the
period in which a mobile station is unable to receive a usable forward traffic
channel in concluding the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 22-23.
Appellant reiterates the previous arguments regarding the power
control limitations of independent claim 19, but adds that Brooks allegedly
teaches away from these limitations since Brooks’ acknowledgement
messages are not null frames, but rather acknowledgements to other specific
messages. App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 17-18.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of APA, Raaf, and
Brooks to arrive at the invention of claim 22 supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether Brooks teaches away
from the limitations of independent claim 19.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following additional findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:

8 Appellant argues claims 22, 23, 28, and 29 together as a group. See App.
Br. 23-24. Accordingly, we select claim 22 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

18
Brooks
11. Brooks’ system automatically attempts to reconnect when a
dropped call is detected. A mobile station 106 detects a dropped call when:
(1) the received power from the active pilots degrades below a usable
level;
(2) the mobile station is unable to receive a forward traffic channel for
a period of time (typically 5 seconds); or
(3) the mobile station exceeds the maximum number of attempts to
transmit a call, and no acknowledgement is received from the base station.
Brooks, ¶ 0022; Fig. 3 (step 325).

ANALYSIS
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. First, Appellant
does not dispute the Examiner’s reliance on Brooks for teaching the recited
“fade timer” (Ans. 23), but rather contends that Brooks teaches away from
the limitations of the independent claims (i.e., independent claim 19 from
which representative claim 22 depends). App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 17-18.
The Examiner, however, did not rely on Brooks for those limitations,
but rather APA and Raaf. See Ans. 18-20, 27, and 28 (rejecting claim 19
over these references). As such, Appellant’s argument is not germane to the
reason that Brooks was cited, namely for teaching or suggesting the added
limitations of dependent claim 22. See Ans. 22-24.
Nevertheless, the Examiner’s point regarding Brooks’ alternatives for
detecting dropped calls (Ans. 29) is well taken. Significantly, the Examiner
relies on only one of the these alternatives, namely detecting dropped calls
Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

19
by detecting losing the forward traffic channel—a feature which is said to
correspond to detecting missing null frames from the base station (Ans. 23
and 29).
Significantly, this relied-upon alternative is one of three different
alternatives for detecting dropped calls in Brooks. FF 11. As such,
Appellant’s argument regarding acknowledgement messages (App. Br. 23-
24; Reply Br. 17-18) is simply not germane to the Examiner’s cited
alternative. See id. Rather, Appellant’s acknowledgement message
argument pertains to the third alternative which detects dropped calls when
the mobile station exceeds the maximum number of attempts to transmit a
call, and no acknowledgement is received from the base station. See id.
In short, Appellant’s argument is simply inapposite to the Examiner’s
reliance on Brooks which is predicated on the forward traffic channel as
providing null frames (see Ans. 23 and 29)—a position that we find
reasonable in any event. As such, we are not persuaded that Brooks teaches
away from its combination with APA and Raaf to arrive at the invention of
claim 22 as the Examiner proposes. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 990; see also
Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. We therefore find the Examiner’s combination of
references in rejecting claim 22 is supported by articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 22. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claims 23, 28, and 29
which fall with claim 22.

Appeal 2009-003151
Application 10/764,175

20
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 24 AND 30
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 24 and 30 over APA, Raaf, Brooks, and Chun (Ans. 24). Although
Appellant nominally argues this rejection separately, Appellant reiterates the
same arguments we considered above regarding claim 22. See App. Br. 25.
We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons
previously discussed. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 24 and
30 for the same reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
claims 1-12, 19, 21-25, and 27-30 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12, 19, 21-25, and 27-30
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

pgc

DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS TX 75380