`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`12/519,006
`
`06/12/2009
`
`Yasunobu Tsukio
`
`MAT—10279US
`
`9562
`
`RATNERPRESTIA
`PO. BOX 980
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`NGUYEN, HAIV
`
`PAPER NUlVfBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2649
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`06/3 0/2015
`
`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):
`
`ptocorrespondence @ratnerprestia.com
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte YASUNOBU TSUKIO and HIROAKI OZEKI
`
`Appeal 20 1 3-003 546
`Application 12/519,006
`Technology Center 2600
`
`Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
`
`ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
`
`Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 26, 30, 34, 38, 43, and 47—50.
`
`Claims 1—25, 27—29, 31—33, 35—37, 39—42, 44—46, and 51—59 have been
`
`canceled.
`
`(App. Br. 1, 8—11.)1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
`
`We reverse.
`
`1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 12, 2009
`(claiming benefit of PCT/JP2008/000139 filed February 5, 2008); Appeal
`Brief (“App. Br.”) filed September 6, 2012; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
`filed January 8, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
`mailed December 19, 2012 and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
`Act.”) mailed April 24, 2012. We note that Appellants (App. Br. 1) indicate
`claims 51—59 are appealed, but these claims have been canceled (see
`Advisory Action dated July 3, 2012, p. 2).
`
`
`
`Appeal 2013-003546
`Application 12/519,006
`
`Appellants ’ Invention
`
`The invention at issue on appeal concerns an apparatus including a
`
`control circuit for controlling switching between a high-sensitivity mode and
`
`a low-sensitivity mode responsive to a signal from a reception quality
`
`judging circuit and when the switching between the high-sensitivity mode
`
`and the low-sensitivity mode occurs, the control circuit increases an amount
`
`of time for a threshold time period.
`
`(Spec. 1:7—10, 3:1—4:4; Abstract.)
`
`Illustrative Claim
`
`Independent claim 26, reproduced below with the key disputed
`
`limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
`
`26.
`
`A receiving apparatus comprising:
`
`a receiving circuit having a high-sensitivity mode and a
`low-sensitivity mode with sensitivity lower than the high-
`sensitivity mode;
`
`a reception quality judging circuit judging an error rate of
`a reception signal output from the receiving circuit; and
`
`a control circuit controlling switching between the high-
`sensitivity mode and the low-sensitivity mode according to a
`signalfrom the reception quality judging circuit,
`
`wherein,
`
`if the receiving circuit is in the high-sensitivity mode, the
`control circuit switches the receiving circuit to the low-
`sensitivity mode when the error rate according to the reception
`quality judging circuit is not more than a release threshold; and
`
`if the receiving circuit is in the low-sensitivity mode, the
`control circuit switches the receiving circuit to the high-
`sensitivity mode when the error rate according to the reception
`quality judging circuit is more than a start-up threshold having
`a greater value than that of the release threshold,
`
`
`
`Appeal 2013-003546
`Application 12/519,006
`
`wherein, if the receiving circuit is in the high-sensitivity
`mode, the control circuit switches the receiving circuit to the
`low-sensitivity mode when a state in which the error rate
`according to the reception quality judging circuit is less than or
`equal to the release threshold continues for a given time period,
`and
`
`wherein, in response to switching between the high-
`sensitivity mode and the low-sensitivity mode occurs, the
`control circuit increases an amount of time of the given time
`period.
`
`Rejection on Appeal
`
`The Examiner rejects claims 26, 30, 34, 38, 43, and 47—50 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyahara (US 2005/0113048
`
`A1, published May 26, 2005), Ulupinar (US 2005/0197080 A1, published
`
`Sept, 8, 2005), and Agashe (US 2003/0190924 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003).
`
`ISSUE
`
`Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
`
`contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
`
`before us follows:
`
`Does the Examiner err in concluding that Miyahara, Ulupinar, and
`
`Agashe collectively would have taught or suggested:
`
`a control circuit controlling switching between the high-
`sensitivity mode and the low-sensitivity mode according to a
`signal from the reception quality judging circuit, [and]
`
`in response to switching between the high-
`wherein,
`sensitivity mode and the low-sensitivity mode occurs,
`the
`control circuit increases an amount of time of the given time
`period
`
`
`
`Appeal 2013-003546
`Application 12/519,006
`
`within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 26 and the commensurate
`
`limitations of claim 43?
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Examiner rejects independent claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
`
`as being unpatentable over Miyahara, Ulupinar, and Agashe. (Final Act. 4—
`
`8; Ans. 2—3.) Appellants contend that Miyahara, Ulupinar, and Agashe do
`
`not teach the features of representative claim 26.
`
`(App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br.
`
`1—4.) Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that Agashe does not
`
`teach a control circuit increasing a time period responsive to switching from
`
`a high-sensitivity mode to a low-sensitivity mode.
`
`(Id.) Appellants explain
`
`that “there is no suggestion in the Agashe reference that enable time period
`
`604 would be increased in response to switching between the modes” (App.
`
`Br. 5) and “even if [Agashe’s] time period is ‘chosen appropriately’ to avoid
`
`frequent switching, this does not mean that the time period is increased in
`
`response to switching between the modes” (Reply Br. 3).
`
`We agree with Appellants that Agashe does not teach a control circuit
`
`increasing a time period responsive to switching from a high-sensitivity
`
`mode to a low-sensitivity mode. (App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 1—4.) Although
`
`Agashe describes (1) turning on or enabling diversity (using multiple
`
`antennas — i.e., increasing sensitivity) when a channel condition (signal
`
`strength) is below a threshold (enable receive diversity threshold (603) for a
`
`time period (a duration longer than the receive diversity enable time period
`
`(604)), and (ii) that the controller (control system (210) or processor (401))
`
`“may turn on or increase the scale of the receive diversity at the receiver”
`
`(Agashe 11 34), this does not necessarily suggest increasing a time period
`
`
`
`Appeal 2013-003546
`Application 12/519,006
`
`utilized to determine if switching is required (e. g., Agashe’s receive
`
`diversity enable time period). (See Agashe 1H] 33, 34; App. Br. 4—7; Reply
`
`Br. 1—4.)
`
`Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
`
`the Examiner erred in concluding that Miyahara, Ulupinar, and Agashe teach
`
`the recited features of Appellants’ claim 26. Appellants’ independent claim
`
`43 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent
`
`claims 30, 34, 38, and 47—50 depend from and stand with their respective
`
`base claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
`
`of claims 26, 30, 34, 38, 43, and 47—50.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26,
`
`30, 34, 38,43, and 47—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`DECISION
`
`We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 30, 34, 38, 43, and
`
`47—50.
`
`cda
`
`REVERSED
`
`