Ex parte Shohara

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2000

08570439 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2000)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte AKI SHOHARA
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1 through 10, which constitute all
the claims in the application.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
2
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A cellular RF communication system having a plurality
of base stations, each base station communicating with a
plurality of assigned stationary RF subscriber stations,
respectively, each base station constituting a cell having a
plurality of sector beam antennas per cell, each sector beam
antenna illuminating a predetermined sector of said cell with
RF communication signals, a plurality of said assigned
stationary RF subscriber stations being assigned to each
sector of a cell, each assigned stationary RF subscriber
station having an RF transceiver and a high gain antenna with
a narrow beam width oriented toward the sector beam antenna
oriented toward its assigned sector, said base stations having
a database of measured co-channel interference characteristics
of each said assigned stationary RF subscriber stations, and,
with respect to each assigned stationary RF subscriber
station, means at each said base station for accessing said
database on demand for access to a communication channel by
one of said assigned stationary RF subscriber stations and
determine said access under predetermined channel quality
criterion.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner:
Ohteru 5,157,709 Oct. 20, 1992
Wang 5,280,630
Jan. 18, 1994
Hamabe 5,475,864 Dec. 12,
1995
(filed July 19,
1994)
Duque-Anton et al. (Duque-Anton) 5,475,868 Dec. 12,
1995
(filed Aug. 3, 1993)
Ã…kerberg et al. (Ã…kerberg) 5,533,027 Jul. 2,
1996
(effective filing date Nov. 19,
1993)
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
3

As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Hamabe in
view of Wang, further in view of Ã…kerberg as to claim 1. As
to claims 3 through 5, the examiner relies upon Hamabe,
Ã…kerberg and Duque-Anton. As evidence of obviousness for
claims 2 and 6, the examiner relies upon Hamabe in view of
Ã…kerberg and Ohteru, with the addition of Wang as to claims 7
through 10.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by the examiner in
the answer, with the following embellishments, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 10, and reverse the
rejection of claim 9.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1, the discussion
at column 1, lines 19 through 26 of Hamabe indicates that co-
channel interference may be decreased by the use of
directional antennas at base stations, with each antenna
illuminating or covering a sector of the cell, whereas
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
4
ominidirectional antennas are used in non-sectorized cells.
On the basis of this teaching in Hamabe, we consider that it
was proper for the examiner within 35 U.S.C. § 103 to have
utilized the additional teachings of high gain directional
antennas in subscriber stations as a means of complementing
the use of the directional or sectorized base station
antennas.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
5
On the basis of the collective teachings of both
references, we therefore conclude that it would have been
obvious to have applied the teachings of mobile cell radio
systems well-known in the art as represented by Hamabe (and
Wang as well as far as this rejection is concerned) in the
subscriber fixed station arrangements in Figures 1 and 2 of
Ã…kerberg. Figures 1 through 3 of this reference contrast land
line and mobile and fixed subscriber stations with respect to
fixed base stations 1. The discussion in the paragraph
bridging columns 1 and 2 of Ã…kerberg even considers the fixed
radio local loop (FRLL) based subscriber stations as being
analogous to the normal cellular technology represented by the
subscriber mobile stations (SMS 5) represented in Figure 5.
Since the Hamabe and Ã…kerberg references are utilized in each
of the four separately stated rejections by the examiner, to
the extent any claim on appeal recites a stationary subscriber
station high gain antenna in some form, the applicability of
well-known prior art cellular-base technology to such fixed
station subscriber stations, is clearly suggested, and the
collective teachings of these references meet these features.
The central logic 27 of the base station in Figure 14 of
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
6
Ã…kerberg contains the capability of switching the antenna
diversity switch 22 in addition to switching channels if
necessary to ensure the proper connectability to the remote
fixed antennas 7 such as in Figure 2.
It is thus also apparent in the consideration of Hamabe
and Ã…kerberg alone that the use of the word "stationary" in
the claims on appeal to define the terminal stations' antennas
is not patentably distinct since Ã…kerberg also teaches this
feature for the antenna 7 such as in Figure 2. Furthermore,
even a conventional cellular-based system may be considered
stationary if it is not used in a mobile-sense or not moved.
This reasoning of the combinability of Hamabe and
Ã…kerberg directly meets the arguments represented by appellant
between pages 5 and 10 of the brief concerning the first
stated rejection. The clear inference to the reader of the
teachings and suggestions of Hamabe, Wang and Ã…kerberg is at
least that the teachings of mobile interference minimization
of various channels in a mobile cellular environment in Hamabe
and Wang clearly would have been applicable in the environment
of a fixed subscriber station as in Ã…kerberg. In contrast to
the normal teachings in Hamabe and Wang of a mobile subscriber
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
7
being used with respect to various different base stations,
the need obviously would have been present as shown and taught
in Ã…kerberg for a fixed-base station with respect to a fixed
subscriber. Simply
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
8
put, the antennas of the fixed base station, as well as its
corresponding fixed subscriber station, must be directed to
each other and therefore are considered assigned.
In contrast to appellant's view that there is no teaching
and suggestion in Wang of a database of measured co-channel
interference characteristics, we respectively disagree. The
examiner properly relies on the preferred channel list (PCL)
of Wang as a basis from which to allocate communication
channels, which are specifically ranked in accordance with the
occurrence of prior events on the channels, or a channel
history, which is in-part based upon the mean quality margin
and current channel quality determinations. The discussion at
column 1, lines 36-45 of Wang relied upon by the examiner
indicates that the co-channel interference of the type
discussed in Hamabe is also used as a measure of quality as
discussed in this reference. Dynamic channel allocation
methods are also taught in Wang to complement those in Hamabe
to minimize or eliminate this co-channel interference.
In addition to the preferred channel list comprising a
database of Wang comparable to the claimed database of claim 1
for example, Hamabe utilizes a list of candidate channels
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
9
which also comprises such a comparable database of the type
claimed. The basis for the discussion of such a list in
Hamabe is derived from the examiner-noted discussion of the
middle paragraph of column 1 of this reference, which also
teaches that a list of available channels according to past
history of co-channel interference is kept in the prior art to
Hamabe which is utilized as a basis for determining future
dynamic channel allocations as taught in this reference. It
is also taught in the context of uplink and downlink signals.
As a measure of co-channel interference determinations to
determine channel quality, the noise value associated with the
respective channels is also determined as discussed in the
latter portion of column 6 of Hamabe. These values must
obviously be measured to the extent claimed as are the
measurement of all values determined as expressed at the
bottom of column 4 of Wang. The discussion at column 9
associated with Figure 8 of Wang also indicates that a signal-
to noise-ratio and interference ratios are discussed as a
measure of quality determinations in Wang. We are therefore
unpersuaded by the appellant's argument at page 9 of the brief
that Wang is not concerned with interference factors.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
10
The addition of Duque-Anton with the combined teachings
of Hamabe and Ã…kerberg as applied to claims 3 through 5 is
also proper in our view within 35 U.S.C. § 103. As noted
earlier Hamabe specifically deals with noise determinations as
a measure of quality in the context of co-channel interference
determinations as well as set forth at the end of claim 3 on
appeal. Duque-Anton buttresses the measurement aspect of
various signal parameters to determine quality and goes well
beyond those already discussed with respect to Hamabe. As the
examiner noted, the bottom of column 2 of Duque-Anton again
specifically deals with various signal to noise ratios, frame
bit error rates, etc. which relate to co-channel interference
problems as outlined in Hamabe and discussed in a more general
way as a measure of
co-channel interference determinations in Duque-Anton. Column
2, lines 16-29 of Duque-Anton discuss the use of field
strength and interference measurements as a part of quality
determinations which include the use of an exclusion matrix,
comparable to a database. The details of Duque-Anton expand
upon these considerations.
Appellant's argument as to this rejection at pages 14
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
11
through 16 have been considered. However, appellant merely
lists certain features recited of each the claims 3 through 5
and continues this same line of reasoning regarding the
alleged deficiencies of the mobile cellular system of Hamabe
integrating with the fixed station cellular system of Ã…kerberg
which has been addressed earlier in this opinion. Even though
Duque-Anton is a mobile cellular-type system, his teachings
obviously would have been applicable to a fixed-base system
for the same reasons outlined earlier in this opinion.
Lastly, we turn to the two separate rejections of claims
2 and 6 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We agree with the
examiner's view as to the obviousness of claims 2 and 6 in
view of the combined teachings and showings of Hamabe,
Ã…kerberg and Ohteru. In addition to our earlier discussions
in this opinion with respect to Hamabe and Ã…kerberg, the
abstract of Ohteru is the best representation of the substance
of the teachings of this reference, which clearly indicates
that various sensing or measuring operations occur in using
various polling signals or control signals of the type claimed
that are periodically sent from the control station and the
respective base stations comparable to what is done in a
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
12
normal cellular based environment anyway. More specifically,
as to the co-channel interference problems discussed in
Hamabe, Ohteru specifically collects data to form an
interference matrix in Figure 4 to be used within the memory
element 7 of the control station 1 in Figure 1. Ohteru
therefore complements the teachings of a database list as
we outlined earlier in Hamabe, as well as the measurement of
various types of signals with respect to co-channel
interference determinations set forth in that reference as
well. Hamabe, as indicated earlier in this opinion, deals
with the relationship of co-channel interference problems and
noise. Again, the focus of appellant's arguments with respect
to the rejection of claims 2 and 6 relates to arguments which
we have found unpersuasive earlier in this opinion, focusing
chiefly upon the mobile cellular environment of Ohteru and
Hamabe in contrast to the fixed subscriber station environment
of Ã…kerberg.
The addition of Wang to this combination of three
references in the rejection of claims 7 through 10 buttresses
the evidence of obviousness of claims 7, 8 and 10. It is not
believed necessary for us to discuss further the details of
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
13
Wang and the content of the features of claims 7, 8 and 10
since appellant's arguments with respect to the rejection of
these claims merely point out the subject matter of the claims
rather than argue the patentability of them in light of the
collective teachings of the references. As with other
rejections, appellant's arguments of the mobile cellular
nature of Hamabe, Wang and Ohteru are not persuasive of
patentability.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
14
We do, however, agree with appellant's view expressed at
page 13 of the brief that the combination of the references
does not teach the details of the channel assignment regime
set forth in detail in claim 9 on appeal, which is a mirror of
the logic presented in the flow chart of Figure 8 of the
disclosed invention. The detail of the subject matter of this
claim goes well beyond the examiner's assertions of
unpatentability of it in light of the references relied upon
either in the statement of the rejection portion in the answer
or the responsive arguments portion of the answer. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, but reverse the rejection of claim 9. As such, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
15
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
)
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART N. HECKER )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
16
JIM ZEGEER
801 NORTH PITT STREET
# 108
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
JDT/dal
Appeal No. 1998-2608
Application 08/570,439
17