Ex Parte Obuchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2016

12842225 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/842,225 07/23/2010
61650 7590 06/21/2016
MYERS WOLIN, LLC
100 HEADQUARTERS PLAZA
North Tower, 6th Floor
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kazuhisa OBUCHI
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.
FJOS 26Aa 3641
EXAMINER
DEAN, JR, JOSEPH E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2016 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):
patent@myerswolin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUHISA OBUCHI and TETSUY A Y ANO 1
Appeal2015-000859
Application 12/842,225
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3--6, 8, 9, 11-16, and 18-20, which are all of the
pending claims. 2 We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Fujitsu Limited as the real party in interest. (Br. 3.)
2 Claims 2, 7, 10, and 17 were canceled in an Amendment dated Feb. 28,
2011, and claims 21-24 were canceled in an Amendment dated July 8, 2013.
Appeal2015-000859
Application 12/842,225
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to an error
rate control apparatus for use in a wireless communication system." (Spec.
1:12-13.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitation italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wireless base station comprising:
a transmitter configured to transmit a data signal and a
TPC (transmit power control) signal to a same mobile station;
and
a control unit configured to regulate transmission power
of the TPC signal in accordance with an error rate of the TPC
signal in the mobile station.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Petersson US 6,567,670 Bl
Kraiem et al. ("Kraiem") US 6,925,286 Bl
REJECTIONS
May 20, 2003
Aug. 2, 2005
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Kraiem. (Final Act. 3-6.)
Claims 4, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kraiem and Peterssen. (Final Act. 6-7.)
2
Appeal2015-000859
Application 12/842,225
ISSUE
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in finding Kraiem describes "a control unit
configured to regulate transmission power of the TPC [transmit power
control] signal in accordance with an error rate of the TPC signal in the
mobile station," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 6, 9, and 16.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner maps the disputed limitation of claim 1 onto Kraiem's
teaching of: "each mobile terminal monitors the received signal quality and
if a mobile terminal detects a deviation of a signal quality above a certain
threshold, it notifies the peer mobile terminal to increase or decrease its
transmit power level accordingly with a recommendation message according
to the present invention." (Kraiem 5: 14--19 (emphasis added); see Final Act.
3--4.) The Examiner finds Kraiem's disclosure of "a deviation of a signal
quality" describes "error rate." (Final Act. 2--4.)
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because "signal
quality, as defined in Kraiem, refers to received signal strength," and not an
error rate. (Br. 9 (emphasis added).) At pages 9--12 of their Brief,
Appellants point to several portions of the disclosure of Kraiem that confirm
their reading of "signal quality" as referring to "signal strength." For
example, Kraiem teaches:
Based on the received signal strength determined by the signal
quality measurement unit 5 which is communicated to the
controller 6 and the wanted received signal strength of the
receiver 3, which is known to the controller 6, a difference signal
3
Appeal2015-000859
Application 12/842,225
is generated within the controller 6 and supplied to the direct
mode transmit power control encoder 10.
(Kraiem 3:54--59 (emphasis added); Br. 11.) Appellants argue "the text in
Kraiem specifically states signal quality is the received signal strength, ...
[and] there is nothing in Kraiem to provide even the slightest suggest[ ion]
that signal quality has any relationship to the error rate of the TPC signal."
(Br. 11.)
For the reasons stated by Appellants, we concur with Appellants'
contention the Examiner erred in finding Kraiem teaches "a control unit
configured to regulate transmission power of the TPC signal in accordance
with an error rate of the TPC signal in the mobile station," as recited in
independent claim 1. Independent claims 6, 9, and 16 contain similar
limitations. According, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 or the rejections of the claims dependent
thereon.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 8,
9, 11-16, and 18-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
4