Ex Parte Naguib et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201612106960 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation