Ex Parte Naguib et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

11072743 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111072,743 0310312005
23696 7590 03/23/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ayman Fawzy Naguib
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
040292 7865
EXAMINER
BOLOURCHI, NADER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A YMAN FA WZY NAGUIB and A VNEESH AGRAWAL
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
Technology Center 2600
Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
55-69. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a system and methods to vary the
power of a signal provided to a power amplifier based upon the location of a
frequency or frequencies of signals to be transmitted within the transmission
frequency band. Abstract.
Claim 55, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
55. A method for wireless communication, comprising:
modulating a signal comprising a sequence of carrier
frequencies for at least two symbols of the signal; and
varying a power of each of the carrier frequencies of the
signal in accordance with a relationship between the sequence of
carrier frequencies and a transmission mask.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wu US 2005/0009476 Al Jan. 13, 2005
ETSI TS 101 475, Vl.3.1 (2001-12) Technical Specification,
"Broadband Radio Access Networks (BRAN); HIPERLAN Type 2; Physical
(PHY) Layer,"© European Telecommunications Standards Institute 2001
(hereinafter "HIPERLAN2").
THE REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claim 55-69 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wu in view of HIPERLAN2.
2
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
HIPERLAN2 teaches the limitation of "varying a power of each of the
carrier frequencies of the signal in accordance with a relationship between
the sequence of carrier frequencies and a transmission mask" as recited in
claim 55.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Answer and
the Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that HIPERLAN2 does not disclose varying each of
the carrier frequencies of a sequence of carrier frequencies, in accordance
with a relationship between the sequence of frequencies and a transmission
mask as recited in claim 55 (App. Br. 9).
Appellants explain that the power of any particular carrier frequency
disclosed in HIPERLAN2 cannot exceed the transmission mask, but
HIPERLAN2 does not disclose varying any of the carrier frequencies based
on a relationship between the mask and the sequence of carrier frequencies
as recited in the claims (App. Br. 9). As shown in Appellants' Figure 3A,
frequencies F 1, F 2, and F 3 are near or at a center of the band; thus, there
needs to be little or no clipping and/or back-off (Spec. para. 46; App. Br. 9).
In Figure 3B frequency F6 is near Fmaxand therefore, the maximum power
level 326 of signal 320, and therefore of signals 322 and 324 in the sequence
is reduced (Spec. para. 47; App. Br. 9). According to Appellants, the power
level of each of the sequence of carrier frequencies is varied based on a
3
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
relationship between the sequence of carrier frequencies and the
transmission mask (App. Br. 9).
RG.SA
kYt
·· .. '""
i ': . ')
! : : ;
.r., ;;
Figures 3A and 3B reproduced here, show the reduction of the power
signal of the frequencies F 4, F s and F 6 when F 6 is near F max where the
frequencies F 1, F 2, and F 3 at the center of the band are not reduced.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that for the power of any particuiar carrier frequency disciosed in
HIPERLAN2 not to exceed the transmission mask, the power of each of the
carrier frequencies would have to be varied between each of the carrier
frequencies and the transmission mask (Ans. 6). In other words, as shown in
HIPERLAN2 Figure 18, ifthe sequence of frequencies span between -30 to
30 MHz, the power will be clipped at -40 dBc based on the transmission
mask, if the sequence of frequencies span between -11 and 11 MHz, the
power will be clipped at -20 dBc based on the transmission of the mask, and
if the frequencies span between -9 and 9 MHz, the power will be clipped at 0
dBc (see Ans. 15-16 and HIPERLAN2 Figure 18 reproduced below).
4
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
I
··············•··· ............................................. .
.,,,., ............. , .... .;.. ............................ JJ ...........................................
11
. ; f'.,~,:,u~::~'.~;<' c:lti;~~f:t,·~~;:~"'""~
f~;h.~.~d n~~urn Fr~~ Cf U€-:nc;i ..
N::)TE: <~Bt ~;th~~ :·;~::-ect~~.~~ ck~n~>~~:~.· ~:..~~{at::{::._~ ~:o u-~~~ ~·:~~;n:~~nor:·~ 3pe~~h-~3: p~;~~~~:-r ~~-:;~B'.$.~~Y ~->~!ht:· ~f~~~::·~r~:.!:i~~~~i ~d~v~:~iL
Figure 18 shows how the power varies of each of the carrier
frequencies of the signal in accordance with a relationship between
the sequence of carrier frequencies and a transmission mask.
Appellants further argue that HIPERLAN2 does not disclose varying
a power of carrier frequencies of a sequence of carrier frequencies based
upon a proximity of the sequence of carrier frequencies to minimum and
maximum frequencies of a transmission mask as recited in dependent claim
56 (App. Br. 10). Rather, HIPERLAN2 discloses that the power of a
particular carrier frequency cannot exceed the specified maximum power for
that frequency based on the offset from a nominal frequency (App. Br. 10).
For example, a frequency with a 9 MHz offset may have maximum power, a
frequency with a 11 MHz offset can have power up to -20dBc power relative
to the maximum (App. Br. 10). However, HIPERLAN does not teach any
variance of power based on a proximity to a minimum or maximum
frequency (App. Br. 10). Further, the Examiner marks+/- 30 as minimum
5
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
and maximum frequencies; however, neither the transmission mask shown
in Figure 18, nor the related description discloses a maximum or minimum
carrier frequency (App. Br. 10). Moreover, there is no teaching or
suggestion of varying the power of an entire sequence of carrier frequencies
based on the proximity of the sequence at all, much less based on the
proximity of the sequence to a minimum or maximum frequency as recited in
the claims (App. Br. 10).
We do not agree with Appellants. We agree with the Examiner that if
the carrier frequencies are proximal the minimum and maximum
transmission of frequencies of -30 and 30 MHz as shown in Figure 18, the
power of the signal for all of the carrier frequencies included within that
spectrum will necessarily be reduced to -40 dBc as depicted (see Ans. 5-7
and HIPERLAN2 Fig. 18).
Appellants further argue the limitation of claims 60, 61, 65, and 66, of
"at least a second processor" and assert the feature is not taught by the
reference. App. Br. 11. Such arguments are not substantive arguments of
Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) ("A statement which merely
points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for
separate patentability of the claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e 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.").
For the above reasons we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claim 55
and claims 56-69 not separately argued.
6
Appeal2014-006303
Application 11/072,743
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that HIPERLAN2 teaches the
limitation of "varying a power of each of the carrier frequencies of the signal
in accordance with a relationship between the sequence of carrier
frequencies and a transmission mask" as recited in claim 55.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 55---69 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7