Ex Parte Howard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 25, 2013

11273443 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PAUL HOWARD, ALAN EDWARD JONES, and VISHAKAN PONNAMPALAM ____________________ Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B. CHEN, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19-21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 Real Party in Interest is IPWireless, Inc. 2 Claims 6-9, 15-18, 22, and 23 have been canceled, and are not on appeal. Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention is related to a method and apparatus for automatically selecting between coherent and non-coherent transmission in a wireless communication system, on the basis of an estimated Doppler frequency shift due to motion of a mobile terminal. Abstract; Spec. ¶[0001] and ¶[0008]. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 10, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of Appellants’ invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of selecting coherent or noncoherent transmission modes for a mobile terminal in a wireless communication system, comprising: estimating a Doppler frequency shift resulting from motion of the mobile terminal relative to a base station; comparing the estimated Doppler frequency shift with a threshold value of Doppler frequency shift; and if the estimated Doppler frequency shift exceeds the threshold value, selecting a noncoherent transmission mode for the mobile terminal; otherwise selecting a coherent transmission mode for the mobile terminal. 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 28, 2009 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 15, 2010 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 16, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed November 14, 2005 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 3 Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Brown US 5,767,738 Jun. 16, 1998 Lee US 2004/0015308 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Kalhan US 2005/0062645 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Li US 6,907,087 B1 Jun. 14, 2005 Kinnunen US 2006/0285611 A1 Dec. 21, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1, 10, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee and Li. Ans. 4-7. (2) Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Li, and Brown. Ans. 7-9. (3) Claims 4 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Li, Brown, and Kinnunen. Ans. 9-10. (4) Claims 5, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Li, and Kalhan. Ans. 10-12. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: (1) Li is concerned with “a method and device for multi- selection coherent detection” at the receiver end, which is in contrast with Appellants’ claimed “method of selecting coherent or noncoherent transmission modes for a mobile terminal” at the transmitter end (App. Br. 10). Specifically, Li only discloses selecting between coherent and noncoherent detection schemes for the same Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 4 received signal at the receiver end, and does not disclose selecting between coherent and noncoherent transmission modes at the transmitter end (Reply Br. 1-4); and (2) the combination of Lee and Li fails to disclose or suggest a threshold value of Doppler frequency shift, for selecting between noncoherent transmission above the threshold, and coherent transmission below the threshold, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10 and 19 (App. Br. 11). Issues on Appeal The dispositive issues on appeal are whether the references teach “coherent or noncoherent transmission modes” and whether the Examiner improperly combined the teachings of Lee and Li. App. Br. 7-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s uncontested factual findings regarding Lee and Li. For emphasis, Lee discloses: (1) estimating a Doppler frequency shift (Ans. 5, 12 citing Lee ¶¶[0003], [0005], [0011], and [0016]); (2) comparing the estimated Doppler frequency shift with a threshold value (Ans. 5, 12 citing Lee ¶[0024]); and (3) selecting different transmission modes (not specifically coherent and noncoherent) for the mobile terminal based on the Doppler frequency shift (Ans. 5,13 citing Lee ¶¶[0011] and [0024]). As a Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 5 secondary reference, Li is cited for a disclosure of selecting, based on the Doppler frequency shift, between a noncoherent detection method (Ans. 5-6 citing Li, col. 3, ll. 57-59 “in the case of high Doppler frequency shift, the non-coherent or differential detection method may be used”) and a coherent detection method (Ans. 5-6 citing Li, col. 3, ll. 59-60 “while in the case of low Doppler frequency shift, the coherent detection method can be used”). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the distinctions between coherent and noncoherent detection schemes at the receiver end as disclosed by Li, and coherent and noncoherent transmission modes at the transmitter end as recited in Appellants’ claims 1, 10, and 19 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-4). In view of the teachings of Lee and Li, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that “if the receiver is detecting the incoming signal based upon coherent or noncoherent modes, [then] the transmitter would have to be switching between coherent or noncoherent transmission modes.” Ans. 14. Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding. Absence that evidence or argument, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that: One skilled in the art would therefore be not only be motivated to combine these two references (as described above), one would also recognize the finite amount of options to correct for Doppler Frequency shift (which is a well known problem in the art) by using the method of Lee to first obtain, compare, determine if the Doppler frequency shift exceeds or falls below a threshold, and selecting of two different transmission modes in combination of Li's method of selecting coherent or noncoherent modes based upon the obtained Doppler Frequency shift in order to correct for this problem. Ans. 14-15 (emphasis added). Appeal 2011-005315 Application 11/273,443 6 For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 as well as claims 2-5, 11-14, and 20-21, which depend upon independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and thus stand therewith. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19-21. 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