Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11062239 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte HENRY CHANG, JORGE FABREGA-SANCHEZ,
and GREGORY POILASNE

Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 11, 16, 17, and 21 through 38.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for use in a wireless electronic
communication system where the antenna of a wireless device is tuned to
increase efficiency at either the transmit frequency or receive frequency.
See Appellants’ Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are representative of the claimed
invention under appeal and reproduced below:

1. A method performed in a wireless communication
device, the method comprising:
receiving a reverse power control signal from a base
station; and
adjusting an antenna matching circuit in response to the
reverse power control signal to adjust an antenna efficiency.

11. A wireless communication device comprising:
an antenna;
a tunable antenna matching circuit connected to the
antenna and configured to establish an antenna efficiency in
response to a control signal;
a processor connected to the tunable antenna matching
circuit and configured to tune the antenna matching circuit in
response to a reverse power control signal transmitted from a
base station and received at the wireless communication device.

REFERENCES
Soong US 2004/0193971 A1 Sep. 30, 2004
Hoffmann US 7,047,046 B2 May 16, 2006

Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 11, 16, 17, and 21 through 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Soong in view of Hoffman.
Answer 4-11.
1

ISSUES

Rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue on pages 16 through 18 of the Brief and pages 2 and
3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error.
2

These contentions present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in the finding that Hoffman teaches an
antenna matching circuit?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Hoffman teaches a reverse
power signal from a base station?

Rejection of independent claim 11, 16 and the claims dependent
thereupon
Appellants argue on pages 18 and 19 of the Brief and pages 3 through
8 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is in error.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
September 16, 2009.
2
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated June 1, 2009,
and Reply Brief dated November 13, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239

4

These contentions present us with the issue did the Examiner err in finding
that Hoffman teaches a tunable antenna matching circuit?
3

ANALYSIS
Rejection of independent claim 1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that Hoffman teaches an antenna matching circuit or that Hoffman
teaches a reverse power signal from a base station. 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 Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
In addition to the Examiner’s response, we note that Appellants’
Specification discusses an antenna matching circuit as a circuit that changes
the impedance of the antenna by changing the capacitance. Specification,
paragraph 10. Hoffman’s circuit which is used to direct to the antenna array,
switches capacitance into and out of the antenna array. See figure 3B and
col. 7, ll. 35-40. Further, we do not find a limitation which defines a
claimed base station from the remote unit as disclosed by Hoffman. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding that Hoffman teaches a signal on the

3
We note Appellants present additional arguments with respect to these
claims, however we do not reach these additional issue as this issue is
dispositive.
Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239

5

reverse channel that is used to adjust the antenna’s directionality. Answer
12. Further, Hoffman teaches selection of the appropriate direction can
increase the received signal 3-5 dB which is an increase in efficiency. Col.
2, 11. 53-55. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

Rejection of independent claims 11, 16 and the claims dependent
thereupon
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. In response to Appellants’
arguments, the Examiner finds that Hoffman teaches an antenna matching
circuit since every antenna has to be tunable. Answer 12-13. We disagree
with the Examiner, as the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to
support the finding that Hoffman teaches a tunable antenna matching
circuit.
4
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
11, 16 and the claims dependent thereupon. We note that claim 21, which is
dependent upon claim 1, recites a similar limitation directed to tuning the

4
We note that claims 11 and 16 differ from claim 1 in that claim 1 does not
recite that matching circuit is a tunable antenna matching circuit.
Appellants’ Specification discusses tuning an antenna as adjusting the
frequency of the antennas peak efficiency. See Abstract, and paragraphs 49-
51. We do not see that the disclosure of Hoffman is related to such tuning of
an antenna.
Appeal 2010-004539
Application 11/062,239

6

matching circuit. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 21 for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 11 and
16.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11, 16, 17, and 21 through 38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11, 16, 17, and 21 through 38 is
affirmed in part.
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-IN-PART

ELD