Ex Parte Ahn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

11773192 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/773,192 07/03/2007 Chi-Hun Ahn 1235-341 1903
66547 7590 07/30/2014
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
HTUN, SAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2014 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 CHI-HUN AHN
____________________

Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–8. Claims 9–17 are canceled.1 We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Although indicated as pending in the outstanding Final Rejection mailed
Jan. 21, 2011, claims 9–17 are canceled by the Amendment filed Dec. 2,
2010, and therefore are not subject of this appeal.
Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192

2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to performing a handoff in a wireless
communication system. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for performing a handoff in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
executing a downlink fast power control when a
Received Signal Strength (RSS) of a serving Base Station (BS)
is less than a threshold;
calculating a mean of RSSs subject to the downlink fast
power control, and comparing the calculated mean with the
threshold; and
performing the handoff to a neighbor Base Station (BS)
when the mean of the RSSs is less than the threshold.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rudrapatna US 6,052,598 Apr. 18, 2000
Hamabe US 2002/0094837 A1 Jul. 18, 2002

REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamabe and Rudrapatna. Ans. 4–12.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

2 Appellant argues the rejection of independent claim 1. Separate
patentability is not argued for claims 2–8. Therefore, we decide the appeal
of claims 1–8 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192

3
1. Rudrapatna’s average instantaneous signal strength fails to teach
calculating a mean of Received Signal Strengths (RSSs) subject to the
downlink fast power control as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 8.
2. Rudrapatna’s use of two threshold values to determine a handover time
fails to teach executing, calculating and performing steps using the same
threshold as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8, 9, Reply Br. 2, 3.
3. Hamabe teaches a “conventional mobile SIR measurement scheme,” not
“comparing the calculated mean with the threshold, which was used in
the executing step, as recited in Claim 1.” App. Br. 9.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 7–10)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–4), the issue presented on appeal is whether
the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hamabe and Rudrapatna
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1.
ANALYSIS
In connection with contention 1, Appellant contends Rudrapatna’s
average instantaneous signal strength fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation of calculating a mean of Received Signal Strengths (RSSs) subject
to the downlink fast power control as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 8.
However, absent evidence or a line of technical reasoning in support of the
contention, Appellant’s naked assertion of error is not considered to be
argument. 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
Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192

4
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.”). In contrast, the Examiner finds
Appellants’ “‘. . . . downlink fast power control”’ is broadly interpreted to
include and be taught by Hamabe’s “‘increment of forward transmission
power.’” Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds Hamabe’s calculation of an
average power by averaging the power received over several frames teaches
calculating a mean of signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) measurements (Ans.
5) and Rudrapatna’s computation of an average instantaneous signal strength
teaches calculating a mean of RSSs. Id. at 6. In the absence of sufficient
evidence or argument in rebuttal, we find the Examiner’s findings
reasonable and are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ contention 1.
In connection with contention 2 Appellant argues Rudrapatna uses two
criteria to determine a handover time (i.e., both incoming and outgoing
thresholds) while claim 1 requires performing a handoff when the received
signal strength is less than a single, common threshold (i.e., incoming
threshold) used by both the executing and calculating steps. App. Br. 8, 9,
Reply Br. 2, 3. We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 1 does not
restrict performance of the handoff exclusively on whether the RSS is less
than a particular threshold, i.e., does not exclude additional criteria such as,
for example, the signal strength between a mobile unit and a neighboring
base station. See Reply Br. 3, (citing Rudrapatna claim 15). That is, claim 1
requires performing a handoff at least when the mean of the RSSs is less
than a threshold although additional and/or alternative criteria (including
Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192

5
thresholding) may apply. Therefore, Rudrapatna’s description of
determining a handover time based on both an incoming threshold and an
outgoing threshold teaches performing a handoff when the RSS is less than a
threshold. Furthermore, Appellant fails to explain why the thresholds of
Hamabe and Rudrapatna are different thresholds such that their combination
fails to teach or suggest the executing, calculating, and performing steps of
claim 1 using the same threshold. Instead, because the combination of
Hamabe and Rudrapatna teaches or suggests measuring an RSS, the
combination further teaches or suggests using a corresponding incoming
threshold to trigger the handoff steps of claim 1. Still further, under a broad
but reasonable interpretation, the threshold of claim 1 may include several
threshold values, i.e., there is no requirement for the recited threshold to
consist of a single, constant value. Therefore, Rudrapatna’s multiple
thresholds also teach or suggest a single threshold. Accordingly, for each of
the reasons supra, Appellants’ contention 2 is unpersuasive of Examiner
error.
In connection with contention 3, Appellant argues Rudrapatna does
not cure the deficiencies of Hamabe identified by the Examiner and for
which the Examiner relies on Rudrapatna. App. Br. 9. However, rather than
detail why Rudrapatna is also deficient, Appellant argues “Hamabe merely
discloses a conventional mobile SIR measurement scheme.” Id. Because
the Examiner relies on Rudrapatna, not Hamabe, for the disputed comparing
step (Ans. 6), Appellants’ contention of error in connection with Hamabe is
not persuasive of error. In particular, Appellant is arguing the teachings of
Hamabe separately without considering the combined teaching of Hamabe
and Rudraptna. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
Appeal 2012-001767
Application 11/773,192

6
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Accordingly, for the reasons supra, Appellants’ contention 3 is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hamabe and Rudrapatna together with the rejection of
dependent claims 2–4 and 6–8 not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
We find the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Hamabe and Rudrapatna teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 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

rvb