Ex Parte Cui et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11376749 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DONGZHE CUI, YUAN-RONG SHEN,
and I-FONG ANTONIO WU
____________

Appeal 2010-010643
Application 11/376,749
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010643
Application 11/376,749

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to setting a mobile station
transmit power for use during the handoff procedure at a level corresponding
to a power level of a pilot channel of the VoIP call. See Spec. ¶ [00021].
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method, comprising
performing a handoff between a voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) call and
a circuit switched call including setting a power level for the circuit switched
call based upon an average power of a pilot channel of the VoIP call.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Semper (U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 2006/0229074 A1; Oct.
12, 2006) in view of Czaja (U.S. Pat. No. 6,937,583 B1; Aug. 30, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Semper in view of Czaja and Hellmark (U.S. Pat. Appl.
No. 2002/0183086 A1; Dec. 5, 2002).
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Semper in view of Czaja and Park (U.S. Pat. No.
6,643,520 B1; Nov. 4, 2003).
Appeal 2010-010643
Application 11/376,749

3
The Examiner rejected claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Semper in view of Czaja and Sunay (U.S. Pat. No.
5,940,743; Aug. 17, 1999).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Semper and Czaja teaches the limitation of “setting a power
level for the circuit switched call based upon an average power of a pilot
channel of the VoIP call” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 10-
13), Czaja does not teach setting a power level for the circuit switched call
based upon an average power of a pilot channel of the VoIP call as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend that in Czaja the target base station
forward link transmit power is set based on the power control command
information from a serving base station (id.). Appellants further contend
that the forward traffic channel is not the same thing as a pilot channel (id.).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Czaja teaches that the
target base station power is set based on the power control command, which
corresponds to the current transmit power setting of the serving base station
forward channel and an offset which is a correction associated with the
desired QoS (col. 13, ll. 15-35). We find no teaching in Czaja of “setting a
power level for the circuit switched call based upon an average power of a
pilot channel of the VoIP call” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-010643
Application 11/376,749

4
Semper does not cure the above cited deficiency. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the
rejections of claims 2, 4, and 5. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 3 and 6-12, for the same reasons. The additional references of
Hellmark, Park, and Sunay do not cure the above cited deficiencies.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Semper and
Czaja teaches the limitation of “setting a power level for the circuit switched
call based upon an average power of a pilot channel of the VoIP call” as
recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc