Ex Parte Miyoshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 2016

13090821 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/090,821 04/20/2011 125116 7590 03/25/2016 Dickinson Wright PLLC James E. Ledbetter, Reg. No.28.732 1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kenichi Miyoshi 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. 009289-21263 3301 EXAMINER DUONG, CHRISTINE T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/25/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte KENICHI MIYOSHI, KATSUHIKO HIRAMATSU, TAKAHISA AOYAMA, ATSUSHI SUMASU, and OSAMU KATO Appeal2014-003021 Application 13/090,821 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 3-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Harris Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-003021 Application 13/090,821 THE INVENTION Appellants' Specification explains that in a conventional mobile communication system, a mobile station apparatus needs to transmit a rate request value continuously to the base station thus resulting in a problem of useless electric power consumption for that continuous period of time. Spec. i-f 6. Appellants' invention increases the efficiency of transmitting the rate request value by only transmitting the rate request value when the difference between the average data transmission rate and the data transmission request value is larger than a threshold value, or when the previous data transmission rate request value and the latest data transmission rate request value are different from each other. Spec. i-f 10. Exemplary independent claim 3 is reproduced below. 3. A mobile communication apparatus comprising: a receiver configured to receive a signal from a base station; . . .c: ,..l â€¢ a measurmg section con1igureu to measure a reception quality of the received signal; a determining section configured to determine a reception quality value based on the measured reception quality; and a transmitter configured to periodically transmit the reception quality value to the base station, and also transmit the reception quality value to the base station before a next periodic transmission when a previously transmitted reception quality value is different from a current determined reception quality value; the transmitter being configured to not transmit the reception quality value to the base station before the next periodic transmission when the previously transmitted reception quality value is the same as the current determined reception quality value. 2 Appeal2014-003021 Application 13/090,821 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS Claims 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (hereafter AP A), Bennett (US 6,775,707 Bl, iss. Aug. 10, 2004) and Katou (US 6,450,021 Bl, iss. Sep. 17, 2002). ANALYSIS Appellants argue "nothing in Bennett et al. refers to transmitting a reception quality value in response to a received signal at all." App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue "[i]mportantly, the specific teaching therein is to not transmit unchanged information at all, but there is no teaching of transmitting the information to the base station before a next periodic transmission when the previously transmitted information is different from the current determined information, as claimed." Id. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because they do not address the Examiner's findings and attack the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on the Admitted Prior Art, not Bennett, as teaching transmitting a reception quality value in response to a received signal. Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 2-3. Similarly, the Examiner relies on the combination of the Admitted Prior Art and Katou, not Bennett, as teaching transmitting the reception quality value to the base station before a next periodic transmission when the previously transmitted value is different than the current value. Final Act. 15-16; see also Ans. 3--4. 3 Appeal2014-003021 Application 13/090,821 Appellants further argue "as with Bennett et al., nothing in the Katou et al. patent refers to transmitting a reception quality value in response to a received signal either." App. Br. 8. Here again, Appellants attack the references individually without addressing the Examiner's findings as a whole. The Examiner relies on the Appellants' Admitted Prior Art, not Katou, as teaching transmitting a reception quality value in response to a received signal. Appellants' argument is therefore unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-8 which were argued together as a group. See App. Br. 5. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 3-8 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4