Ex Parte Kanou

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2016

12295482 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/295,482 09/15/2009 Hideto Kanou 78198 7590 09/02/2016 Studebaker & Brackett PC 12700 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 102 Reston, VA 20191 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 005000-K00155 7656 EXAMINER LE,LANAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): info@sbpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HIDETO KANOU Appeal 2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN F. HORVATH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 13. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 7. Claims 6-11, 14, and 15 have been cancelled at page 3 of the Amendment filed January 10, 2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and formatting added): 1. A multiband wireless communication method for performing a reception operation of a second communication in a second frequency band while performing a transmission operation of a first communication in a first frequency band, comprising: changing a gain characteristic of a power amplifier for performing the transmission operation when the reception operation is performed so that gain is lowered in the second frequency band compared to the gain characteristic when the reception operation is not per/ ormed. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robinett (US 2002/0177465 Al, Nov. 28, 2002) and Appellant's admitted prior art (AAPA). 1 1 We select claim 1 as representative. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2 and 3. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 2 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robinett, AAP A, and Tsutsui et al. (US 2004/0229579 Al, Nov. 18, 2004). 2 The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Robinett, AAP A, Tsutsui, and Funaki (US 2005/0231794 Al, Oct. 20, 2005). 3 Appellant's Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Robinett fails to relate the change in gam to the gam characteristic when the operation is not performed. Furthermore, the Action concurrently acknowledges that Robinett does not explicitly disclose the method for performing a reception operation in a second frequency band while per/ orming a transmission operation in a first frequency band; and instead, relies upon AAP A for supplying this limitation. App. Br. 5, emphasis added. 2 Appellant addresses claim 5 by repeating the argument for claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of this claim turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, this claim is not discussed further herein. 3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 12 and 13. Rather, Appellant addresses these claims only by referencing the arguments for the claims from which they depend. Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to the parent claims. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: In the Advisory Action of June 18, 2014, the Examiner asserts: "[T]he reception operation is not performed is interpreted as not estimating or not performing an estimation of the received signal power level when there is no received incoming signal since it would waste the estimation circuitry usage and power to perform the estimation when there is no received incoming signal since there is null power level and gain, therefore, Robinett inherently disclose the gain characteristic when the reception operation is not performed .... " (emphasis added) Appellant strongly disagrees and submits that the above interpretation of Robinett is unreasonable. The final Office Action acknowledges at page 4 that Robinett does not disclose a method for performing a reception operation in a second frequency band while performing a transmission operation in a first frequency band. In this regard, Robinett is completely irrelevant to a reception operation, and is silent about performing gain control whether a reception operation is performed or not. This being the case, the recited features of claim 1: "changing a gain characteristic of a power amplifier for performing the transmission operation when the reception operation is performed so that gain is lowered in the second frequency band compared to the gain characteristic when the reception operation is not performed," clearly are not disclosed or suggested by Robinett, taken alone or in combination with AAP A. App. Br. 5. 3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because: Robinett is irrelevant to a reception operation, and is silent about performing gain characteristic control in accordance with 4 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 whether a reception operation is performed or not, the Examiner includes the following explanation of her position: "Robinett discloses estimating a received signal power level when the reception operation is performed (i-f 98-i-f 99), therefore, the reception operation is not performed is interpreted as not estimating or not performing an estimation of the received signal power level by the WCD 300 when there is no received incoming signal and this results in null power level and no gain which in other words means the gain is not lowered when the reception operation is not performed." (See, lines 7-13 of page 7 of the Examiner's Answer). While the Examiner's above expressed logic is difficult to understand, the Examiner appears to be stating that when no estimation is being performed, there is no received signal, and because there is no received signal, the signal power gain is zero. Then Examiner then appears to equate zero signal power with "no gain." However, the above statements include the following . . maccurac1es: First; simply because estimation may not be performed at some point in time does not necessarily mean a reception operation is not being performed. Second, paragraphs 98-99 of Robinett do not mention anything whatsoever about not performing a reception operation. Third, a "gain" associated with a signal is not the same as "a gain characteristic of a power amplifier," as claimed. That is, an amplifier "gain characteristic" is a characteristic of a device or circuit and is not gain of a signal. Fourth, if no signal is being received by an amplifier, then no signal is being output by that amplifier. This does not mean that the amplifier has a zero gain characteristic. Rather, it simply means there is no signal. Reply Br. 2-3. 5 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious for the reasons argued by Appellant? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions. As to Appellant's above contention 1, we disagree. First as to contention 1, Appellant's argument relies on the Final Action's acknowledgment that "Robinett do[ es] not explicitly disclose the method is for performing a reception operation in a second frequency band while performing a transmission operation in a first frequency band." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). But Appellant overlooks the totality of the Examiner's rejection. Specifically, the Examiner correctly points out that "Robinett disclose[ s] a multiband wireless communication method and apparatus for performing a reception operation of a second communication in a second frequency band while performing a transmission operation of a first communication in a first frequency band." Final Act. 3--4. We agree, as Robinett teaches using terrestrial cellular transmit frequencies in a first band from 825-845 MHz and terrestrial cellular receive frequencies in a second band from 870-890 MHz at paragraph 93. Robinett then discusses terrestrial communication with both transmit and receive signals at paragraph 99 cited by the Examiner. Figure 3A of Robinett discloses wireless device 300 is capable of simultaneously receiving and transmitting in different frequency bands because it has separate transmission and reception paths, and 6 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 independently controllable mixing signal sources 323 and 357 in the separate transmission and reception paths. See Robinett i-fi-183, 84; Fig. 3A. We read the Examiner's acknowledgment, argued by Appellant, as directed to the more widely dispersed transmit (e.g., 800 MHz) and receive (e.g., 2 GHz) frequency bands disclosed (Spec. i-f 17) by Appellant (but not expressly claimed). The Examiner is correct to rely on the AAP A to show that simultaneously transmitting and receiving in such widely dispersed transmit and receive frequency bands is known in the art. Second as to contention 1, we disagree with Appellant that "Robinett fails to relate the change in gain to the gain characteristic when the operation is not performed." App. Br. 5. We conclude an artisan would understand Robinett's statement in paragraph 99, "a gain of transmit IF AGC amplifier 314 is adjusted such that a power level of transmit RF signal 226, for example, is a predetermined amount below the estimated received signal power level," to be a gain change (across all frequency bands including the receive frequency band) of a power amplifier for performing a transmission operation when the reception operation is performed. Further, we conclude Robinett's statement in paragraph 99, "[t]his transmit power level can be further adjusted, for example, increased or decreased," renders obvious the gain is lowered from an initial starting level at the transmit amplifier. Lastly, we conclude that an artisan would know that time periods of non- reception exist (i.e., when the reception operation is not performed) where a gain of transmit IF AGC amplifier 314 does not need to be adjusted such that a power level of transmit RF signal 226 is a predetermined amount below an estimated received signal power level. That is, the gain of the transmit amplifier is undiminished during periods of non-reception. 7 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 As to Appellant's above contention 2, we disagree. For the reasons discussed above we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Robinett inherently discloses lowering the gain characteristic when the reception operation is performed compared to the gain characteristic when the reception operation is not performed. As to Appellant's above contention 3, we disagree. As to the first point of contention 3, we find this unpersuasive as it does not align with the Examiner's analysis. The Examiner's point was predicated on not estimating the power level of the received signal if a "reception operation is not performed." Ans. 7. Appellant's argument that "estimation may not be performed ... does not necessarily mean a reception is not being performed," fails to address the logic of the Examiner's finding. Reply Br. 2. As to the second point of contention 3, we disagree for the reasons discussed above as to contention 1. As to the third point of contention 3, we find this unpersuasive as it does not align with the Examiner's analysis. Appellant does not cite the location of the alleged "a 'gain' associated with a signal." Reply Br. 3. And, contrary to Appellant's argument, we find the Examiner's analysis is directed to "a gain characteristic of a power amplifier for performing the transmission operation when the reception is performed so that gain is lowered in the reception frequency band," as claimed. Final Act. 3--4, Ans. 7. As to the fourth point of contention 3, the Examiner's finding is not that there is no gain on the received signal, which is absent, but that there is no negative gain or lowering of gain on the transmitted signal when the 8 Appeal2015-003761 Application 12/295,482 received signal is absent. See Ans. 7. Therefore, Appellant's argument fails to convince us that the Examiner erred. CONCLUSION (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 13 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). (2) Claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 13 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 12, and 13 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9