Ex Parte Lo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

12982081 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/982,081 12/30/2010
31292 7590 12/19/2018
CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A.
1232 N. University Drive
Plantation, FL 33322
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
WaichiLo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
1557A-507U
(P37319_US1)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7752
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptomail@cwiplaw.com
cwdocketing@cardinal-ip. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte W AICHI LO, ROLAND SMITH, CHRIS WILLIAMS, STEPHEN
RA YMENT, and MICHAEL RUSSELL
Appeal2018-005148
Application 12/982,081
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11 and 21-23. Claims 12-20 were withdrawn
from consideration by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005148
Application 12/982,081
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to protocols and algorithms for
contention-based adaptive modulation networks. Spec. ,r 1. Exemplary
claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A transmitting Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) for use in a
wireless network of Wi-Fi APS and user portable devices, the
transmitting Wi-Fi AP comprising:
processor that is configured to dynamically and
continuously adjust, based on a power of the transmitting Wi-Fi
AP measured at one or more receiving Wi-Fi APs in the network,
a transmitter power and a receiver sensitivity of the transmitting
Wi-Fi AP, wherein the processor is further configured to adjust
the transmitter power on a user-portable-device-by-user-portable
device basis, to a minimum level required to achieve the highest
possible modulation rate in communications with user portable
devices associated with the transmitting Wi-Fi AP.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Yavuz et al. (US 9,491,722 B2; issued Nov. 8, 2016)
("Yavuz"), Qi et al. (US 2007/0019584 Al; published Jan. 25, 2007) ("Qi"),
and Hariharasudhan Viswanathan, Adaptive Transmit Power Control Based
on Signal Strength and Frame Loss Measurement for WLANs, Graduate
School-New Brunswick, Rutgers, The State University ofNew Jersey
Thesis, October 2009 (retrieved at
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/26644/PDF/1/play/) ("Hari").
See Final Act. 5-11.
Claims 2, 8, and 22-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Yavuz, Qi, Hari, and Itsuki (US 2006/0121928 Al;
published June 8, 2006). See Final Act. 11-13.
2
Appeal2018-005148
Application 12/982,081
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent Claims 1 and 7, the Examiner finds the
combination of cited references teaches or suggests "[a] transmitting Wi-Fi
Access Point (AP) ... comprising [a] processor that is configured to
dynamically and continuously adjust, based on a power of the transmitting
Wi-Fi AP measured at one or more receiving Wi-Fi APs ... a transmitter
power ... of the transmitting AP." See Final Act. 5-7. More particularly,
the Examiner finds Yavuz teaches an access node (i.e., femto node or femto
cell) that receives an indication of a measured signal strength from another
access node (i.e., macro node or macro cell) and selects a particular transmit
power value based on the received indication. See Ans. 3--4 ( citing
Yavuz 2:23-27, 2:31-33, 2:47---65).
Appellants argue Yavuz's femto node (which the Examiner interprets
as the claimed "transmitting Wi-Fi AP") is the entity taking measurements
of the macro node's transmit power in order to adjust its own (i.e., the femto
node's) transmit power, and thus, Yavuz's femto node does not adjust its
transmit power based on measurements of its own (i.e., the femto node's)
transmitted signals measured at the macro node. See App. Br. 6-7; see also
Reply Br. 6-12. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument for the reasons
provided in Appellants' Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. 2
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not shown, on
this record, that the combination of cited references teaches or suggests all
the elements of claims 1 and 7. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
2 Appellants made additional arguments regarding dependent claims 2 and 8.
See App. Br. 11-12. We do not address the additional arguments, however,
because the issues associated with the independent claims are dispositive of
the appeal.
3
Appeal2018-005148
Application 12/982,081
claims 1 and 7, as well as the remaining claims dependent therefrom, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 21-23.
REVERSED
4