10166066 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

Ex Parte Agin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 13, 2012

10166066 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte PASCAL AGIN and NICOLAS BILLY Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 21. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to power control in a mobile communications system. See Specification pages 1 and 2. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of adjusting the target value of an inner power control loop in a mobile radio communications system, wherein: said inner loop target value is adjusted by a first outer control loop operating on the basis of a first quality indicator and of a first outer loop target value for said first quality indicator; and said first outer loop target value is adjusted by a second outer control loop operating on the basis of a second quality indicator and of a second outer loop target value for said second quality indicator. REFERENCE Engström US 6,639,934 B1 Oct. 28, 2003 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Engström. Answer 3-6. 1 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner‟s Answer mailed on May 27, 2009. Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 3 ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 9 and 10 of the Brief 2 that the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us with the following issue: did the Examiner err in finding Engström teaches a first outer loop that adjusts the inner loop target and the second outer loop adjusts the first outer loop target as claimed? On page 10 of the Brief, Appellants present additional arguments directed to claim 2 and 3 which we address in the analysis section of this decision. ANALYSIS Claim 1 We have reviewed the Examiners‟ rejection in light of Appellants‟ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants‟ conclusion the Examiner erred in finding Engström teaches a first outer loop that adjusts the inner lop target and the second outer loop adjusts the first outer loop target as claimed. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to the Appellants‟ arguments identifying two different mappings of Engström‟s device to the claimed elements. Answer 9-10. We concur with the Examiner‟s findings and reasoning with respect to the mapping of Engström to claim 1 on page 8 of the Answer. 3 Appellants‟ arguments directed to this mapping of Engström to the claims assert that the rejection is 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated April 21, 2006 and Reply Brief dated August 14, 2006. 3 We do not address the second mapping on page 9 of the Answer, as the mapping on page 8 is sufficient to show anticipation. Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 4 in error as the “„SIR difference‟ is not an inner loop target value but rather an inner loop output, i.e., it is the adjustment sent back to the base station to be used for power control.” Brief 10. Further, Appellants argue that the “SIR difference value” is “not a target of any sort.” Reply Brief 3. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Claim 1 identifies that the inner loop target value is “adjusted by a first outer loop control” but does not identify any function that an inner loop target value is used for. The Examiner has found that the “SIR difference” value is adjusted based upon an outer loop control in a similar manner. Answer 8. While Appellants may have intended the term “inner loop target” to identify a different type of value than the “SIR difference,” we decline to import such limitations into the claim. 4 Appellants have not identified any objective evidence that the skilled artisan would view the values as different, nor identified a specific definition in either of the Briefs or the Specification which would view the values as different. Thus, we consider the Examiner‟s interpretation of the “SIR difference” as being an inner loop target value to be reasonable. As such, Appellants arguments have not persuaded us of error and we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 1. 4 In as much as Appellants intended the term “target” to be a value to be achieved or a goal, we see no reason why the “SIR difference value” which Appellants‟ characterize, on page 10 of the Brief, as a value used to make adjustments in the control of power, does not meet such an interpretation. See also Engström col. 1, ll. 39-43. Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 5 Claim 2 Appellants ague on page 10 of the Brief that claim 2 recites the second quality indicator is obtained from blocks, and that adjustments to the first outer loop be made on a block by block basis. Appellants assert the citations of Engström identified by the Examiner simply mention monitoring over time. The Examiner‟s reply to Appellants‟ arguments provides a comprehensive explanation of where Engström teaches the claimed measurements and adjustments made on a block by block basis. We concur with the Examiner‟s finding as it is supported by evidence. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error and we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Appellants argue on page 10 of the Brief: As to claim 3, the examiner points to lines 39046 [sic] of column 6 of Engstrom, and as to claims 17, 18 and 20 the examiner points to elements 206 and 2120 [sic] of Fig. 6A of Engstrom, but in neither case do the cited passages discuss the subject matter of those claims. We do not consider this to be a substantive argument. Therefore, Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments and supporting evidence persuasive of Examiner error regarding the aforementioned disputed limitations. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)(“we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir 2008)(Arguments not made are considered waived). Nonetheless, Appeal 2009-015062 Application 10/166,066 6 the Examiner has responded to Appellants arguments, finding that col.1, lines 44-55 and Figures 7 and 9 of Engström teaches adjusting the outer loop control target value to a first or second value depending upon whether an error is detected (the limitations of claim 3). Answer 10-11. We concur with this finding by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us of error and we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 3 and claims 17, 18, and 20 which are grouped with claim 3. Claims 4 through 15, 19 and 21 Appellants have not presented separate arguments directed to these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed with respect to representative claim 1. SUMMARY Appellants arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 15 and 17 through 21 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