Ex Parte Yuuki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

11174741 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/174,741 07/06/2005 Shinji Yuuki 5243-009-US01 1230
79184 7590 03/08/2013
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SHINJI YUUKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-008739
Application 11/174,741
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008739
Application 11/174,741

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 6,
7, 9, 10, and 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 6 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
6. A mobile communication system wherein adaptive
modulation control is executed between a mobile station and a
wireless base station, said mobile communication system
comprising
a transmission processor operable to transmit a channel
quality indicator, an aggregation of channel quality
indicators, or a rank to which the channel quality indicator
corresponds used in the adaptive modulation control to a
higher-level device of the wireless base station;
wherein the higher-level device comprises a band control
part operable to perform band control using the channel quality
indicator, the aggregation of the channel quality indicators, or a
rank to which the channel quality corresponds; and wherein:
the higher-level device comprises a multiplexer or
demultiplexer and wireless base station controller; and
the object of the band is the link between the wireless
base station controller and multiplexer or demultiplexer, which
is shared by a plurality of wireless base stations.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Choi (US 2004/0022213 Al)
and Li (US 2004/0127223 Al).1

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 10 and 12. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-008739
Application 11/174,741

3
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Choi, Li, and DiCamillo (US
2005/0068994 Al). 2
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Choi does not disclose or
suggest a transmission processor operable to transmit a channel
quality indicator, an aggregation of channel quality indicators, or a
rank to which the channel quality indicator corresponds used in the
adaptive modulation control to a higher-level device of the
wireless base station” (App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted)) and “Li
does not disclose or suggest a transmission processor operable to
transmit a channel quality indicator, an aggregation of channel
quality indicators, or a rank to which the channel quality indicator
corresponds used in the adaptive modulation control to a higher-
level device of the wireless base station.” (App. Br. 13).
2. Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as discussed in the arguments
directed to claim 7. (App. Br. 13). 3

2 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 9. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
3 Appellant also argues the teachings of a “Lu” reference, which we do not
find in the rejection before us. Therefore, this argument is not relevant to
the argued rejection.
Appeal 2010-008739
Application 11/174,741

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6 and 7 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s current rejections in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Appellant quotes a claim limitation and alleges that the prior art does
not disclose or suggest the limitation. Appellant’s Brief is otherwise silent
as to why this is the case. Appellant’s silence does not persuade us that the
Examiner has erred. Appellant presents no substantive arguments regarding
the claims other than merely restating the limitations called for in the claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what
a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability
of the claim.”); 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.”).
Appeal 2010-008739
Application 11/174,741

5

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 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

msc