Ex Parte Tiedemann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201311295987 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte EDWARD G. TIEDEMANN, JR., JOSEPH P. ODENWALDER, CHARLES E. WHEATLEY, III and ROBERTO PADOVANI ____________________ Appeal 2010-008753 Application 11/295,987 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008753 Application 11/295,987 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): Claim 1. A method for reducing delay associated with generating and processing a signal indicative of a characteristic of a propagation path between a first communication station and a second communication station, comprising: transmitting the signal indicative of the characteristic to the first communication station along with power adjustment requests from the second communication station, wherein the characteristic includes a determined velocity characteristic of the second communication station; receiving the signal and the power adjustment requests at the first communication station; setting a transmission power level at the first communication station in accordance with the received signal for a predetermined delay period; modifying the adjusted transmission power level in accordance with the power adjustment requests if the predetermined delay period has ended. Appeal 2010-008753 Application 11/295,987 3 Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Reed (US 5,574,984) and Henriksson (US 5,128,965). 1 Appellants’ Contention Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: (1) “Reed teaches that any determination is of a change in velocity and such a change in velocity is neither transmitted nor received but is consumed at the station of determination” (App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted); (2) “as defined in Reed, detection of Rayleigh fading merely results in ‘a fading signal representative of a change in subscriber speed’, i.e., acceleration and not a ‘determined velocity’ as claimed by Appellant.” (App. Br. 14, emphasis omitted); and (3) “Reed clearly teaches that any change in velocity is determined and consumed or consumed in the determination of the ‘fading characteristic’ which is further consumed in the generation of a ‘request’ to the base station to adjust the base station’s transmit power level” (App. Br. 14). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-5. Therefore, we treat claim 1 as representative for claims 2-5. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-008753 Application 11/295,987 4 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. As to Appellants’ above contention, we disagree that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Examiner that “Reed disclose[s] that the base station receive[s] a fading characteristics signal (indicative characteristic) from the mobile station (see col. 6/ln. 59-col. 3/ln. 3), wherein the fading characteristic represent[s] a change in the subscriber’[s] mobile device speed or environment.” (Ans. 4-5). Further, Appellants’ Specification states that as to the mobile station providing a signal indicative of a velocity characteristic, “it may provide that information as a power adjustment request signal in anticipation of a change in the quality of the propagation path.” (Spec. 12-13). That is, any change in velocity is determined at the mobile station and consumed at the mobile station in the generation of a ‘request’ to the base station to adjust the base station’s transmit power level, which request is an indication to the base station of a velocity change, (i.e., velocity characteristic). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1-5 are not patentable. Appeal 2010-008753 Application 11/295,987 5 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 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 ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation