Ex Parte Mammarappallil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 5, 2012

10955367 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte GIGY S. MAMMARAPPALLIL, TYLER A. BROWN, and ALFREDO R. CASTILLO ________________ Appeal 2010-006477 Application 10/955,367 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006477 Application 10/955,367 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 – 7 and 12 – 17. Claims 8 – 11 and 18 – 23 are canceled. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm. Invention The invention relates to a method of adaptive power control in an electronic device, the method including the step of receiving a signal from a wireless radio access network indicating a method for setting a supplemental threshold. See Abstract. Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added) 1. A method of adaptive power control comprising the steps of: receiving a signal from a radio access network indicating a method for setting an initial supplemental channel threshold at a beginning of a supplement channel transmission burst, wherein the method for setting the initial supplemental channel threshold at the beginning of a supplemental channel data transmission burst is determined utilizing a first variable, the first variable indicative of a radio frequency environment; determining a value for the initial supplemental channel threshold at the beginning of the supplemental data transmission burst utilizing the indicated method from the radio access network; and Appeal 2010-006477 Application 10/955,367 3 setting the initial supplemental channel threshold at the beginning of the supplemental channel data transmission burst. Rejections1 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5 – 7, 12 – 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Okumura (US 2003/0003942 A1). Ans. 3 – 7. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okumura and Rikola (US 2004/0203457 A1). Ans. 8 – 9. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Okumura and McGowan (US 2004/0106423 A1). Ans. 9. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Okumura discloses “receiving a signal from a radio access network indicating a method for setting an initial supplemental channel threshold . . . the method . . . determined utilizing a first variable, the first variable indicative of a radio frequency environment,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Okumura, by disclosing setting a target Signal to Interference plus noise power Ratio (SIR) based on whether a 1 The Examiner lists additional claims in the rejections. However, because these claims have been canceled, the rejections of these claims are moot. See App. Br. 2; see also Amendment after Final (Mar. 23, 2009); Advisory Action (Mar. 23, 2009). Appeal 2010-006477 Application 10/955,367 4 received signal is continuous or includes idle period (i.e., is discontinuous) discloses “receiving a signal from a radio access network indicating a method for setting an initial supplemental channel threshold . . . the method . . . determined utilizing a first variable, the first variable indicative of a radio frequency environment,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 3 – 4 (citing, e.g., Okumura, figs. 7 and 10). Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that claim 1 is directed to “sending a message or variable that instructs a device to use a specific method to set the initial supplemental threshold.” App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument. Claim 1 is directed to receiving a “signal . . . indicating a method for setting an initial supplemental channel threshold.” However, claim 1 does not limit the signal to indicating a method by way of a “message or variable.” Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. In Okumura, if a continuous signal is being received (i.e., during data transmission), the method for adjusting the target SIR is to (1) increase the target SIR if the data quality obtained is lower than the target quality, (2) decrease the target SIR if the data quality obtained is higher than the target quality, or (3) maintain the target SIR if the data quality obtained is similar to the target quality. See Okumura fig. 7 and ¶ [0065]. If a discontinuous signal is received (i.e., during a data transmission’s idle period), then a different method for adjusting the target SIR is employed. In one embodiment, the target SIR is be set to SIRto at the beginning of a data transmission period. See Okumura fig. 7 and ¶ [0070]. In an alternative embodiment, the target SIR is set based on the length of the idle period. See Okumura fig. 10 and ¶ [0078]. In both cases, the method for setting the Appeal 2010-006477 Application 10/955,367 5 target SIR is different when the received signal is discontinuous than when the received signal is continuous. Moreover, whether the signal is continuous or discontinuous is a first variable indicative of a radio frequency environment. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Okumura discloses “receiving a signal from a radio access network indicating a method for setting an initial supplemental channel threshold . . . the method . . . determined utilizing a first variable, the first variable indicative of a radio frequency environment,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 – 7 and 12 – 17, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 10. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 7 and 12 – 17 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 tj