Ex Parte Forrester et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13190228 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2017)

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.
13/190,228 07/25/2011 John A. Forrester 102486 1765
15055 7590 08/29/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
JIA, XIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN A. FORRESTER, PAUL GUCKIAN, LIN LU,
REZA SHAHADI, AMIT MAHAJAN, WALID M. HAMDY,
and FRANCIS M. NGAI
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,22s1
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 9—11, 13, 14, 24—26, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 37-40, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to wireless communications with multiple
transmitters and dynamically selecting the power level of the second
transmitter based on the power of the first transmitter such that the total
power stays within regulatory limits. Spec. Abstract, || 27—29.
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
Illustrative Claim
Claim 9 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
9. A method for wireless communications, comprising:
identifying a first transmit power level for a first
transmitter unit; and
dynamically selecting a second transmit power level and
an active time period for a second transmitter unit based on the
first transmit power level, wherein a total power used by the first
and the second transmitter units is less than or equal to an
allowable power level which is determined based on a regulatory
radio frequency (RF) exposure limit, and the first and the second
transmitter units operate near simultaneously using one or more
transmit antennas.
Rejections
Claims 9, 11, 13, 14, 24, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 37^40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Gautier (US
2007/0135154 Al; June 14, 2007), Alapuranen (US 2003/0228875 Al; Dec.
11,2003), and Patel (US 2010/0291963 Al; Nov. 18,2010). Final Act. A-
5.2
Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Gautier, Alapuranen, Patel, and Katada (US
2009/0093219 Al; Apr. 9, 2009). Final Act. 9.
Claims 11 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 9, 24, 32, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Advisory Act. (Dec. 3, 2015).
2
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
3; Advisory Act. (Dec. 3, 2015). Appellants do not address this rejection in
the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief.3
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Gautier and
Patel teaches or suggests “identifying a first transmit power level for a first
transmitter unit,” as recited in claim 9?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Gautier and
Patel teaches or suggests “dynamically selecting a second transmit power
level and an active time period for a second transmitter unit based on the
first transmit power level,” as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
Claim 9 recites “identifying a first transmit power level for a first
transmitter unit.” The Examiner relies in part on Gautier for teaching this
limitation. Final Act. 5 (citing Gautier || 15, 18, Figs. 1—2). Gautier
discloses:
The method 200 can include the step 202 of measuring a loading
characteristic on a first antenna coupled to a first transmitter in
the mobile wireless device and modifying at step 206 a
transmitter power on at least a second transmitter having a
separate antenna based on the loading characteristic measured
on the first antenna. The step 202 of measuring the loading
characteristic on the first antenna can include measuring a phase
train squiggle, a pseudo train ramp, or a full train amplitude ramp
at step 204.
3 Because we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims under § 103,
we decline to reach the merits of the remaining rejection under § 112, first
paragraph. See, e.g., Novartis AG v. Noven Pharms. Inc., 853 F.3d 1289,
1296 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“However, because we affirm ... the Asserted
Claims would have been unpatentable as obvious on the grounds discussed,
we need not address the alternative grounds of unpatentability.”).
3
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
Gautier 118 (emphasis added). Gautier further discloses:
[U]sing the iDEN transmitter “training” information, an
estimation of the phone’s antenna load can be performed. If the
antenna is considered to be in “free space”, the amplitude of the
iDEN “training” parameters (phase train squiggle, pseudo train
ramp and/or full train amplitude ramp) will be the same as when
tested in a factory environment. Once the antenna is “loaded” by
coming within proximity of an object, a shift in the amplitude of
the parameters can be measured.
Gautier 117 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue Gautier teaches measuring the transmitter’s “loading
characteristic,” not its transmit power level. App. Br. 8—9. According to
Appellants, “the loading characteristic described in Gautier corresponds to
an indication of whether the antenna is in free space or in proximity of an
object, but it is not related to transmission power.” Id. at 9 (emphasis
omitted). Although “Gautier teaches measuring the loading characteristics
of the first antenna using a phase train squiggle, a pseudo train ramp, or a
full train amplitude ramp, . . . none of these are a measurement of a transmit
power level.” Id.
For example, a phase train squiggle may be used to determine the
phase delay between the input and output of a transmitter.... A
full train amplitude ramp increases power input into a transmitter
from a minimum power amount to a maximum power amount
and is used to measure, for example, the power compression
point of an amplifier ....
App. Br. 9. Appellants provide only attorney argument in support of these
assertions. Gautier itself never discusses a “phase delay” or “power
compression point,” nor otherwise explains a “phase train squiggle,”
“pseudo train ramp,” or “full train amplitude ramp.” See Gautier || 17—18.
4
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
The Examiner equates load with impedance in finding that when a
wireless device is moved, “the coupling between device antenna and object
(including human being) will be changed, which also causes the load
(impe[da]nce) of the device antenna to change.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also
finds it was “well known in the art” that the “power of a signal is direct[ly]
proportional to the [impedance] amplitude of the signal squared.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner that power is directly proportional to the
square of the amplitude of impedance. Ans. 5; see also Reply Br. 3
(“Although power equals square of amplitude based on the definition of
power . . .”). We also agree Gautier teaches “measuring a loading
characteristic” and estimating an “antenna load.” Gautier || 17—18; Ans. 5.
Given the record before us, Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence
against the Examiner’s finding that “load” is a measurement of impedance
and hence a measurement of power.
We note Gautier teaches “[t]he step 202 of measuring the loading
characteristic on the first antenna can include measuring a phase train
squiggle, a pseudo train ramp, or a full train amplitude ramp.” Gautier 118
(emphasis added). Thus, it is not limited to the particular techniques listed.
We also note Appellants have not sufficiently addressed the Examiner’s
further finding that “Patel’s disclosure of] ‘. . . determin[ing] a first power
level used for transmission over the first air interface’ is also read on
‘identifying a first transmit power level for a first transmitter unit’.” Ans. 9.
Claim 9 further recites “dynamically selecting a second transmit
power level and an active time period for a second transmitter unit based on
the first transmit power level.”
5
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
Appellants argue Gautier only teaches changing the second antenna’s
“power setting mode based on . . . whether or not the first antenna is
‘loaded’ (i.e., in free space or in proximity of an object),” not “dynamically
selecting a power level based on the first transmit power level.” App. Br. 9—
10. “In other words, while operating in either the SAR limited or the tune
power setting mode, Gautier is silent regarding the transmit power level for
the second transmitter unit being dynamically selected based on the first
transmit power level.” Id. at 10.
The claims as presently written, however, do not require changing
power level while in a single mode. Rather, changing between a high power
mode and a low power mode is “dynamically selecting a . . . power level,” as
recited.
We also note the Examiner finds the “[c]ombination of Patel and
Gautier further teaches the limitation of ‘dynamically selecting a second
transmit power level and an active time period for a second transmitter unit
based on the first transmit power level.’” Ans. 6 (emphasis added). Though
Appellants argue “Patel only shows a single transceiver and a single antenna
for communicating over multiple air interfaces” (App. Br. 5) and “Patel fails
to describe dynamically selecting Ta time periodl T” (Reply Br. 6), “[n]on-
obviousness cannot be established by attacking 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).
For dependent claims 10 and 25, Appellants argue Katada does not
overcome the deficiencies of the other references. App. Br. 11. We are not
persuaded the other references are deficient for the reasons above.
6
Appeal 2017-001556
Application 13/190,228
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9, and claims 10, 11,
13, 14, 24—26, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 37-40, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 10-11; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 9-11, 13, 14, 2A-26, 28, 29, 32, 35, and 37-40.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7