Ex Parte Wilson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10330944 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KEITH S. WILSON and MARTIN SMITH
_____________

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR.,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 to 12 and 14 to 19. Claim 13 has been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is concerned with a method and apparatus for
improving transmission signal characteristics (i.e., reducing interference) in
downlink signals used in time division multiple access (TDMA) wireless
communications systems (Title; Spec. 1:1-10). Appellants recognize that
signal characteristics of downlink signals are especially important at the
edge of a cell in such systems (Spec. 2:4-6). The measured signal quality
characteristic of a desired downlink signal is compared to a threshold to
determine if another signal has deteriorated the signal quality of the desired
downlink signal, and, if it has, then a transmission characteristic of that other
signal is changed such that interference of the desired downlink signal is
reduced (Abstract; claims 1, 14, and 18).
The claims are respectively directed to a method to improve downlink
signal characteristics in TDMA wireless communications systems (see claim
1), an associated TDMA system (see claim 14), and an associated user
equipment (e.g., mobile wireless terminal or phone) for such a TDMA
system (see claim 18). Claim 1, reproduced below with the most significant
limitation italicized, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

3
1. A method of improving a signal characteristic of a downlink
signal received on a user equipment in a time division multiple
access (TDMA) wireless communications system, comprising
the steps of:
at a user equipment:
A. receiving a desired downlink signal from a signal
source in a predetermined TDMA time slot;
B. receiving at least one other signal in said same
predetermined TDMA time slot; and
C. measuring a signal quality characteristic of said
desired downlink signal;
the method comprising the further steps of:
D. comparing said measured signal quality characteristic
with a threshold; and
E. where it is determined from said comparison of said
measured signal quality characteristic with said
threshold that said at least one other signal has
contributed to the measured signal quality
characteristic of the desired downlink signal not
meeting the threshold, arranging for the source of
said at least one other signal to change a
transmission signal characteristic of said at least one
other signal so as to reduce interference to the
downlink signal received at the user equipment.
(Claim 1 (emphasis added)).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hogger US 6,490,262 B1 Dec. 3, 2002
Mohebbi US 6,925,303 B2 Aug. 2, 2005
(filed Mar. 18, 2003)

The following rejections are before us for review:
(i) Claims 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 to 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the teachings of Mohebbi.

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

4
(ii) Claims 8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohebbi and Hogger.
(iii) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mohebbi.
With regard to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9, 10, and 12
to 18, the Examiner cites column 3, lines 8 to 31 and column 16, lines 12 to
33 of Mohebbi (see Ans. 4-5, 8-9, and 13-15) as disclosing the recited steps
set forth in limitation E in claim 1: (i) comparing a measured signal quality
characteristic of a desired downlink signal to a threshold to determine if
another signal has deteriorated the signal quality of the desired downlink
signal, and (ii) if it has, then changing a transmission characteristic of the
other signal so as to reduce interference in the desired downlink signal.
More specifically, the Examiner finds that because Mohebbi reduces
interference in the entire network, it also reduces interference in the signal
from base transceiver station 1 (BTS1) (i.e., the desired downlink signal) at
the user’s mobile station by changing characteristics of BTS2 (i.e., the other
signal potentially causing interference) (Ans. 4-5 and 13-14). The Examiner
finds that Mohebbi describes (col. 3, ll. 23 to 29) making a signal selection
based on network interference (e.g., using a signal-to-interference ratio
(SIR)), and the Examiner determines that this teaches comparing the SIR of
the BTS1 downlink signal against a threshold (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner
reasons that because Mohebbi discloses that a downlink signal is transmitted
to “‘the mobile station’” (Ans. 14 (citing Mohebbi at col. 3, ll. 23-33)), the
interference being reduced by Mohebbi is at the subject/particular mobile
station and not at other imaginary mobile stations as asserted by Appellants

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

5
(Ans. 13-14).
Appellants argue, inter alia (App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-3), that
Mohebbi fails to teach or suggest, as recited in step E of claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 14 and 18, the claimed features of
comparing signal quality characteristics and reducing interference from
other signals at the subject user equipment. Appellants contend that
Mohebbi instead reduces interference to other terminals. We find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
Mohebbi discloses a method for improving a signal characteristic of a
downlink signal BTS1 by altering signals at other base stations (e.g., BTS2)
in order to reduce interference (determined as a signal-to-interference ratio,
SIR) in the entire TDMA communications network (Abstract; col. 3, ll. 8-12;
col. 9, ll. 58-65; col. 11, ll. 6-11; col. 12, ll. 48-54). In other words, although
Mohebbi discloses (col. 3, ll. 8-11) reducing interference in a cellular
network during a soft hand off period (when a phone is at the edge of a cell),
which is similar to Appellants’ disclosed invention, Mohebbi consistently
refers to reducing interference in relation to the entire network (e.g., col. 3,
ll. 49-54). Mohebbi is silent as to reducing interference at a specific, desired
user terminal, and/or doing so by comparing the desired downlink signal
with a threshold as set forth in appealed claims 1, 14, and 18.
The Examiner has not sufficiently shown how or why Mohebbi’s
reduction of network interference and subsequent transmission of a
downlink signal to a particular mobile station meets step E of claim 1, or the
similar language of claims 14 and 18. The Examiner explains that reducing
interference in the whole network (as taught at column 3, lines 8 to 12 of

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

6
Mohebbi) will result in reducing interference to the particular/subject mobile
terminal (Ans. 13). However, this does not cure Mohebbi’s failure to teach
(i) comparing the desired mobile terminal downlink signal to a specific
threshold, or (ii) using this threshold to later decide whether to change the
signal characteristic of the other signal “so as to reduce interference to the
downlink signal received at the user equipment” (claim 1 (emphasis added)).
It follows that the Examiner has not established anticipation, because
Mohebbi does not disclose each and every limitation of the claimed
invention set forth in independent claims 1, 14, and 18. Atlas Powder Co. v.
IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We therefore do not sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 to 7, 9, 10, and 12 to 18.
The Examiner rejected dependent claim 11 as obvious over Mohebbi
only because Mohebbi fails to disclose that claim’s additional limitation
(Ans. 11-12). We therefore do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
11 for the reasons set forth above in relation to the anticipation rejection.
The Examiner has also failed to establish that dependent claims 8 and
19 are obvious over Mohebbi in view of Hogger. Claims 8 and 19 depend
from independent claims 1 and 18. Hogger fails to cure the noted
shortcomings of Mohebbi as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 18.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We therefore do
not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 19 for the reasons set
forth above in relation to the anticipation rejection.

Appeal 2009-006149
Application 10/330,944

7
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12, and 14 to 18
under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 is
reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

WILLIAM M. LEE, JR.
BARNES & THORNBURG
P. O. BOX 2786
CHICAGO, IL 60690-2786