Ex Parte Naguib et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12106960 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/106,960 04/21/2008
23696 7590 04/01/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ayman Fawzy Naguib
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.
040292Dl 8773
EXAMINER
BOLOURCHI, NADER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte A YMAN FA WZY NAGUIB and
A VNEESH AGRAWAL
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JOHN
D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
3, 6, and 22-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to varying the power of a signal
provided to a power amplifier based upon the location of a frequency or
frequencies of signals to be transmitted within the transmission frequency
band. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for controlling power comprising:
determining a plurality of carrier frequencies for
transmitting signals from an antenna;
determining an emission mask that defines maximum
power versus frequency between a minimum frequency and a
maximum frequency, wherein the minimum and maximum
frequencies define edge regions of a frequency band; and
reducing power for signals at each of the plurality of
frequencies to a same power level, wherein:
the same power level is less than or equal to a maximum
power level defined by the emission mask for each of the
plurality of carrier frequencies; and
the power is reduced by at least one of clipping or back-
off.
2
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Posti
Dekker
US 6,701,135 B2 Mar. 2, 2004
US 2003/0153285 Al Aug. 14, 2003
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, Manual of Regulations and Procedures for
Federal Radio Frequency Management (Jan. 2008, Rev. Sept. 2009)
(hereinafter "NTIA Manual").
Hiroaki Sudo et al., OFDM Transmission Diversity Scheme for
MMAC Systems, Proc. IEEE 51st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC
2000-Spring, Tokyo, Japan), Vol. 1, 410-414 (2000) (hereinafter "Sudo").
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-3, 6, and 22-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sudo or over Posti or over Dekker in view of
Admitted Prior Art and the NTIA Manual.
ISSUE
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
NTIA Manual teaches the limitations of:
1. "reducing power for signals at each of the plurality of frequencies
to a same power level, wherein the same power level is less than or
equal to a maximum power level defined by the emission mask" as
recited in claim 1; and
3
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
2. "wherein the same power level is determined based upon a
proximity of a frequency of one or more of the signals to one of the
edge regions of the frequency band" as recited in claim 2.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and the Final Action
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 6, 22, 23, 26, 29, and 30
Appellants argue that although the Examiner's highlighted portion of
the NTIA Manual Figure 5 .3 .1 illustrates two frequencies at a maximum
power within a frequency range, the NTIA Manual is silent regarding
reducing power (App. Br. 8; see Fig. 5.3.1 ). Moreover, according to
Appellants, the cited portion fails to teach or suggest a plurality of
frequencies reduced to a same power level (App. Br. 8). Appellants submit
that the mere occurrence of two frequencies at a maximum power fails to
teach or suggest "reducing power for signals at each of the plurality of
frequencies to a same power level" as recited in claim 1 and similar
limitations recited in claims 22, 23, and 30 (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner's annotated portion of Figure 5 .3 .1 of the NTIA
Manual is reproduced below.
4
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
, t:J~tt~Ll~:::r·.
· ,, · t"·'"''"~"-·""''"'7:::::t:::t+"::.::"+:""· t:··'. .:.~"!i"Tl ;tf " " " , .. ;~ . . .• . . .: .O• :~ ·~ . . .
·;: ........... ..
. ·:-···
.· ··~· ..
. . L~' ¥··V·~)·
.·.·.·.·.·.·.· ·.·.·.·,·,·.·.·.· ...... ·.· ........ ::: . .. )~
'
Figure 5.3.1 illustrates two frequencies at a maximum power within a
frequency range.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that the emission mask defines the maximum power
versus frequency and it shows the power level of the amplifier to be reduced,
as dictated by the emission mask (Ans. 9). The claim explicitly defines the
terms "same power" to mean "the same power level is less than or equal to a
maximum power level defined by the emission mask" (see claim 1; emphasis
added). Thus, contrary to Appellants' argument, not all frequencies have to
be the same power as the maximum power level as defined by the mask, but
can also be less than the maximum power level to satisfy the term "same
power."
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 22, 23, and 30. We also affirm the
Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 6, 26, and 29 which were not
separately argued.
5
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
Claims 2, 24, 27, and 31
Appellants further argue that the prior art of record does not teach or
suggest reducing power for signals at each of the plurality of frequencies to a
same power level, "wherein the same power level is determined based upon
a proximity of a frequency of one or more of the signals to one of the edge
regions of the frequency band," as recited in claim 2.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. We agree with the
Examiner that NTIA Manual Figure 5 .3 .1 shows that the same power level is
determined based upon the proximity of a frequency of one or more signals
from the edge regions of the frequency band as highlighted by the Examiner
(see Figure 5.3.1 reproduced below).
~\:;;:.:~l:': :~.). -~ ~:~t. ?·{{!~:.::c:-~ ~:':· r·~r:-1..,,..,:-:.,.-:.:~:.:: ~::}:.~ ··~ ~: :~~~::-~~:~s~:;:;::· f~~» .. ~:~:.~~~-~-! :~~ ::{.iH~ 8 ·~ f.\ ~~:~-~~:~~:~~ ~~
~~:-:.:·rSt;;~;: ~ . .:: .. t
~ ~.:~~~»,~~~~~·=-:.:~ ·ts:,;,;~··::.···· -~~~~~ ~f;:: ;~~~-~~ ~'.$:.:::::: ~h'.-: ~~._'..._.:~~'*~~~:-._;,: ~8.,{i ··· ~{~~ ~h .. \:).X~:t ··· ~-~ .. ~ K.n:~·
Figure 5.3.1 modified by the Examiner to show the edges of the mask
that dictate the maximum power for the respective frequencies at those
edges.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 2, and for
the same reason the rejections of claims 24, 27, and 31.
6
Appeal2014-006044
Application 12/106,960
Claims 3, 25, 28, and 32
Appellants present similar arguments with respect to claims 3, 25, 28,
and 32 as those presented for claim 2 (App. Br. 13). Accordingly, we also
affirm the rejections of these claims for the same reasons as stated supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the NTIA Manual teaches the
limitations of:
1. "reducing power for signals at each of the plurality of frequencies
to a same power level, wherein the same power level is less than or
equal to a maximum power level defined by the emission mask" as
recited in claim 1; and
2. "wherein the same power level is determined based upon a
proximity of a frequency of one or more of the signals to one of the
edge regions of the frequency band" as recited in claim 2.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and
22-33 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)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7