`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/519,006
`
`06/12/2009
`
`Yasunobu Tsukio
`
`MAT—10279US
`
`9562
`
`52473
`7590
`””9””
`W
`RATNERPRESTIA —
`PO. BOX 980
`NGUYEN, HA1 V
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2649
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`12/19/2012
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`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)
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 12/519,006
`
`Art Unit: 2649
`
`Page 1
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Application Number: 12/519,006
`Filing Date: June 12, 2009
`Appellant(s): TSUKIO ET AL
`
`Lawrence E. Ashery, Reg. No. 34,515
`For Appellant
`
`EXAMINER’S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the appeal brief filed on 06 September 2012 appealing from the
`
`Office action mailed 24 April 2012. Accordingly, this Appeal governed by the recent
`
`amendments to 37 C.F.R. pt. 41. Rules of Practice before the BPAI in Ex Parte
`
`Appeals, 76 Fed. Reg. 72,270 (Nov. 22, 2011) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 41).
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 12/519,006
`
`Art Unit: 2649
`
`Page 2
`
`(1) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`Every ground of rejection set forth in the Office action dated 24 April 2012 from
`
`which the appeal is taken is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of
`
`rejection (if any) listed under the subheading “WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS.” New
`
`grounds of rejection (if any) are provided under the subheading “NEW GROUNDS OF
`
`REJECTION.”
`
`(2) Response to Argument
`
`Point (A), The prior art do not disclose the claimed element of, “the control
`
`circuit that increases a given time period in response to switching between the
`
`high sensitivity reception mode and a low sensitivity reception mode” in claims
`
`26, 43 (Appellant’s remarks, section IV. Argument, page 4).
`
`As to point (A), Appellant argues that, Agashe reference suggests a fixed time
`
`period for switching between the reception modes (Appellant’s remarks, section IV.
`
`Argument, page 4).
`
`This argument is unpersuasive because Agashe discloses in Figures 7, 8 and
`
`[0033], [0034] indicate that, “the receiver 200 chooses the appropriate duration/period of
`
`the receive-diversity—enab/e and the receivediversity-disable. The duration of the
`
`receive-diversity-enabIe-period may be chosen appropriately to avoid frequent
`
`switching between different degrees of receiver diversity when freguent
`
`switching may be undesirable, [0033]; Figure 8, at step 803, if the determined
`
`channel condition is below the enabled receive diversity threshold 603, the
`
`control system 210 or the processor 401 may determine whether the channel
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 12/519,006
`
`Art Unit: 2649
`
`Page 3
`
`condition is below the threshold 603 for a duration longer than the receive
`
`diversity enable time period 604. If the channel condition is below the threshold
`
`603 longer than the enable time period 604I the control system 210 or processor
`
`401 may turn on or increase the scale of the receive diversity at the receiver 200,
`
`[0034]).
`
`As Appellant explains in Appeal Brief, page 6 that, “The Appellant’s system
`
`suggests a given time period that is increased in response to switching between the
`
`reception modes. This is beneficial since the time period may be tailored to a specific
`
`receiver (i.e., the system keeps increasing the given time period in an attempt to reduce
`
`the frequency of switching between the high sensitivity (i.e., diversity) and low sensitivity
`
`(i.e., sing/e) modes)” that serves the same purpose as Agashe’s discloses that, “1e
`
`receiver 200 chooses the appropriate duration/period of the receive-diversity-
`
`enable and the receive-diversity-disable. The duration of the receive-diversity-
`
`enable-period may be chosen appropriately to avoid freguent switching between
`
`different degrees of receiver diversity when freguent switching may be
`
`undesirable ([0033])?
`
`Besides, it is well-known technically in the signal communication art regarding to
`
`the well-known technical formula that the “frequency = 1/period”. It is clearly that
`
`increasing the period results less frequency and decreasing the period results more
`
`frequency. Therefore, the inventive concept is not patentable.
`
`
`
`Application/Control Number: 12/519,006
`
`Art Unit: 2649
`
`Page 4
`
`For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Hai V. Nguyen/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
`
`Conferees:
`
`1. Yuwen Pan
`
`/Yuwen Pan/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
`
`2. Nay A. Maung
`
`/NAY A MAUNG/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
