Ex Parte Baker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 14, 2012

10043532 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MATTHEW P.J. BAKER, TIMOTHY J. MOULSLEY, and
BERNARD HUNT
____________________

Appeal 2009-013319
Application No. 10/043,5321
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Appeal 2009-013319
Application 10/043,532

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15, 19, 20, and 25-27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ invention concerns a system and method for improved
data throughput between a mobile station and a plurality of base stations.
“R]espective closed-loop power control means are provided for adjusting
individually the power of some or all physical control channels, or parts
thereof, to which a set of control information is mapped” (Spec. 2-3).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A radio communication system having physical
control channels arranged for the bi-directional transmission of
sets of control information between a secondary station and a
plurality of primary stations, wherein respective closed-loop
power control means are provided for individually adjusting the
power of some or all physical control channels, or parts thereof,
to which a set of control information is mapped, said closed-
loop power control means being utilized to select a subset of
primary stations greater than one primary station, selected from
the plurality of primary stations, for the transmission of data
over at least one data channel between the selected subset of
primary stations and the secondary station.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Willenegger US 2002/0009061 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
Baum US 6,385,462 B1 May 7, 2002
Mohebbi US 6,862,449 B1 Mar. 1, 2005

2 Claims 16-18 and 21-24 have been cancelled. App. Br. 16-17.
Appeal 2009-013319
Application 10/043,532

3
Claims 1-7, 10-15, 19, 20, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willenegger in view of Mohebbi.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Willenegger in view of Mohebbi and Baum.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed July 17, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
December 16, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October
16, 2008) for their respective details.
ISSUE
Appellants argue, inter alia, that neither Willenegger nor Mohebbi
teaches or suggests the claimed closed-loop power control means.
Specifically, Appellants note that the Examiner admits that Willenegger
does not teach this element, and argue that Mohebbi teaches a Signal to
Interference Ratio (SIR) measurement, which is only one part of a closed-
loop power control system (App. Br. 6-8).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Willenegger and Mohebbi teach or fairly
suggest respective closed-loop power control means for individually
adjusting the power of some or all physical control channels?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-7, 10-15, 19, 20, AND 25-27
The Examiner admits that Willenegger does not teach closed-loop
power control means being utilized to select a subset of primary stations
greater than one primary station, selected from the plurality of primary
stations, for the transmission of data over at least one channel between the
selected subset of primary stations and the secondary station (Ans. 4). The
Appeal 2009-013319
Application 10/043,532

4
Examiner finds that Mohebbi teaches closed-loop power control means,
citing Mohebbi’s teaching of an SIR measurement (Ans. 14). In response to
Appellants’ argument that Mohebbi does not teach closed-loop power
control means (App. Br. 6-7), the Examiner cites references in support of his
finding that an SIR measurement “is in fact part of a closed loop power
control means” (Ans. 14-15).
We find the statement by the Examiner that the SIR measurement is
(only) part of closed-loop power control to be an admission that Mohebbi
does not teach “closed-loop power control means . . . provided for
individually adjusting the power or some or all physical control channels, or
parts thereof.” We further find that Mohebbi teaches that a Base Transceiver
Station (BTS) selection message is sent to all the BTSs on a control channel
(Mohebbi, col. 17, ll. 25-28), which fails to teach the claimed “individually
adjusting the power of some or all physical control channels” (claim 1)
(emphasis added).
We therefore find that the combined teachings of Willenegger and
Mohebbi fail to teach all the limitations of the claimed invention. We find
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-15, 19, 20, and 25-27
under § 103 as being unpatentable over Willenegger in view of Mohebbi.
We will not sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 8 AND 9
We have reviewed Baum and find that it does not remedy the
deficiencies of Willenegger and Mohebbi noted supra. Therefore, we will
not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under § 103, for the same reasons
given with respect to claims 1-7, 10-15, 19, 20, and 25-27.
Appeal 2009-013319
Application 10/043,532

5
CONCLUSION
The combination of Willenegger and Mohebbi does not teach or fairly
suggest respective closed-loop power control means for individually
adjusting the power of some or all physical control channels.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15, 19, 20, and 25-27 is
reversed.
REVERSED

llw