Ex Parte Lappetelainen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 2012

10968248 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ANTTI LAPPETELAINEN, VISA SMOLANDER, JUHA
SALOKANNEL, and MIKA KASSLIN
_____________

Appeal 2010-009844
Application 10/968,2481
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 An Oral Hearing for this appeal scheduled for May 1, 2012 was waived.
Appeal 2010-009844
Application 10/968,248
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus of frequency
allocation. See generally Spec: 4-7. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least a first dynamic frequency selection message
generator coupled to at least one of a communication
station and a mobile station, said at least first dynamic
frequency selection message generator configured to
generate a dynamic frequency selection message, the
dynamic frequency selection message indicating a
frequency allocation by which to communicate
subsequent data, the frequency allocation made to attain
a statistical spreading of electromagnetic energy over a
selected frequency range.

REFERENCES
Urs US 6,529,488 B1 Mar. 4, 2003

Dick US 6,850,514 B1 Feb. 1, 2005
(filed May 17, 2000)

2 The Examiner has indicated claims 6-9 as containing allowable subject
matter. Ans. 8.
Appeal 2010-009844
Application 10/968,248
3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Urs. Ans. 3-6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Urs. Ans. 7.
Claims 22, 23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Urs and Dick. Ans. 7-8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Urs discloses a frequency
allocation that is made to attain a statistical spreading of electromagnetic
energy over a selected frequency range?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Urs does not disclose a frequency allocation that
is made to attain a statistical spreading of electromagnetic energy over a
selected frequency range, as required by each of independent claims 1, 12,
13, 21, and 24. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds that frequency
allocations for subsequent communications between wireless devices and the
base stations is disclosed by Urs and that the transmission system is used to
control the power of the transmission signal in order to constrain the range
of the signals over the frequency range. Ans. 9. Therefore, the Examiner
finds that the power, in conjunction with the frequency allocation, provides
for the statistical spreading of the electromagnetic energy. Ans. 9. We
agree with the Examiner.
Appellants initially argue that there is no teaching in Urs as to how
different frequency allocations are made. App. Br. 9. However, we disagree
Appeal 2010-009844
Application 10/968,248
4
since Urs describes allocating frequencies to the type of communication
resource, i.e., reference numerals 303, 305, and 307 of Figure 3. See also
col. 6, ll. 43-47.
Appellants then argue that Urs does not discuss statistical spreading as
disclosed by Appellants’ Specification. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. We do
not find that Appellants’ Specification or the claim language provides a
specific definition for the term “statistical spreading.” Instead, the
Specification merely describes allocating frequency channels for data
communication so as to statistically spread electromagnetic emissions over a
selected frequency range. Spec. 10:2-4 and 11:1-3. As such, the Examiner’s
interpretation that statistical spreading is achieved by adjusting the power
over the allocated frequency is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification.
Lastly, Appellants argue that based upon the Examiner’s
interpretation of the Urs reference, the frequency allocation is not made to
attain the statistical spreading of the electromagnetic energy, but that the
power is used for that purpose since the frequency blocks are already
determined and power control cannot be construed as statistical spreading of
electromagnetic energy. Reply Br. 2-3. However, the Examiner states that
both frequency allocation and power control are used to attain statistical
spreading. Ans. 9. While the claim does not recite the use of both
frequency allocation and power control, the claim also does not preclude the
use of both frequency allocation and power control to attain statistical
spreading.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 12, 13, 21, and 24.
Appeal 2010-009844
Application 10/968,248
5
Regarding claims 2-5, 10, 11, 14-20, 22, 23, 25, and 26, Appellants
argue that these claims are allowable based upon their dependency on one of
claims 1, 12, 13, 21, or 24. App. Br. 11-12. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-5, 10, 11, 14-20, 22, 23, 25, and 26 for the reasons
stated supra with respect to claims 1, 12, 13, 21, and 24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Urs discloses a frequency
allocation that is made to attain a statistical spreading of electromagnetic
energy over a selected frequency range.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5 and 10-26 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

tj