throbber

`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket