Ex Parte Lindoff et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

10830387 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BENGT LINDOFF and BO BERNHARDSSON

Appeal 2010-002234
Application 10/830,387
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-002234
Application 10/830,387

2
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to adapting receiver signal processing
parameters, including digital filter coefficients and structures, as well as
AGC parameters, based on the current service and frequency band used.
(Spec. 6, ¶ [0015].)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for processing a received signal at a
receiver in a communication system that operates in accordance
with an air interface standard, the receiver including a digital
filter and automatic gain control means, the method comprising:

receiving, at the receiver, information indicating a
frequency band of operation and a type of service of the
received signal from the communication system, wherein the
type of service is one of a number of types of services that are
available by means of a same bandwidth via the air interface
standard;

setting gain and filtering parameters of the receiver
according to at least the received information indicating the
type of service; and

processing the received signal at the receiver using the
set gain and filtering parameters.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed October 30, 2009 and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed May 13, 2009.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed September 3, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002234
Application 10/830,387

3
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peterzell (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
2002/0123319 A1, September 5, 2002), Parssinen (Parssinen et al., A 2-GHz
Wide-Band Direct Conversion Receiver for WCDMA Applications, IEEE
Journal of Solid-State Circuits, v. 34, no. 12, December 1999), and Koskinen
(Koskinen et. al., Low-power Decimation and Channel Selection Filter for a
Receiver, IEEE, November 2000 ).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Peterzell, Parssinen, Koskinen, and Abbasi
(Naeem A. Abbasi and Charles A. Zukowski, Trading System Performance
for Energy Use in a VLSI Implementation of an Adaptive Equalizer, Proc.
43rd IEEE Midwest Symp. on Circuits and Systems, August 8-11, 2000).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Peterzell, Parssinen, and Koskinen would have taught or suggested
“receiving, at the receiver, information indicating a frequency band of
operation and a type of service of the received signal from the
communication system, wherein the type of service is one of a number of
types of services that are available by means of a same bandwidth via the air
interface standard,” within the meaning of independent claim 1 (emphasis
Appeal 2010-002234
Application 10/830,387

4
added) and the commensurate limitations recited in independent claims 10
and 19?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-21
Appellants contend, inter alia, “[n]owhere does Peterzell discuss the
receiver receiving information indicating a type of service of the received
signal, ‘wherein the type of service is one of a number of types of services
that are available by means of a same bandwidth via the air interface
standard.’” (App. Br. 7-8.) We agree for essentially the same reasons
argued by Appellants. (Id.)
The Examiner contends that
By reviewing Applicants specification, the frequency
bands of operation that are available by the same interface
standard are the WCDMA band 1 and WCDMA band 2.
WCDMA band 1 is operating in the band (2110-2170 MHZ)
and WCDMA band 2 is operating in the band (1930-1990
MHZ). One of ordinary skill knows that WCDMA band 1 is the
WCDMA used in Europe and the WCDMA band 2 is the
WCDMA used in North America. WCDMA band 2 is also
called CDMA 2000 which operates in exactly in the same
frequency band of (1930-1990 MHZ) as Applicant’s WCDMA
band 2. Therefore WCDMA and CDMA2000 are of the same
air interface standard.
(Ans. 11-12.) The Examiner also construes the claimed “air interface
standard” as the two bands of operation (CDMA 2000 and WCDMA) that
are of the same wideband-CDMA or third generation (3G) air interface
standard since both are wideband or 3G CDMA technologies. (Id. at 12.)
As noted by Appellants (App. Br. 8.), Peterzell, relied on by the
Examiner to teach a number of types of services available over the same
Appeal 2010-002234
Application 10/830,387

5
bandwidth according to a particular air interface standard (Ans. 5, 11),
actually teaches a headset capable of operating in two modes, (air standards)
CDMA and FM. (Peterzell, ¶ [0023].) Therefore, we agree with Appellants
that Peterzell does not teach or suggest services available by means of a
same bandwidth via the same interface standard, as required by independent
claims 1, 10, and 19. (App. Br. 8.)
Based on this record, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 10 and 19 and dependent claims 2-6, 8, 9, 11-15, 17,
18, and 20-21 which depend on and stand with their respective base claims.
Claims 7 and 16
We do not find, nor has the Examiner established, that Abbasi cures
the deficiencies of Peterzell, Parssinen, and Koskinen discussed supra.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 7 and
16 for the same reasons discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED

peb