Ex Parte Agin et al - Page 2

                  Appeal 2007-1603                                                                                         
                  Application 10/036,356                                                                                   
                                                   BACKGROUND                                                              
                         Appellants’ invention relates to a method for improving performance                               
                  is of a mobile radio communications system using a power control                                         
                  algorithm.  An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading                              
                  of exemplary claim 17, which is reproduced below.                                                        
                             17.  A method for improving performances of a mobile                                          
                         radiocommunication system using a closed-loop power control                                       
                         algorithm, said method comprising, upon the occurrence of a                                       
                         significant change in the required transmit power, performing a                                   
                         step of changing the transmit power according to a                                                
                         corresponding change in the required transmission quality                                         
                         target value.                                                                                     
                                                      PRIOR ART                                                            
                      The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in                                    
                  rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                       
                      Tiedemann, Jr.         US 6,137,840   Oct. 24, 2000                                                  
                      Faber         US 6,405,052 B1   Jun. 11, 2002                                                        
                                                     REJECTIONS                                                            
                         Claims 17-21, 23-27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 37, 41, and 43-50 stand rejected                             
                  under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tiedemann, Jr.                                             
                         Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                                        
                  unpatentable over Tiedemann, Jr. in view of Faber.                                                       
                         Claims 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38-40, and 42 stand objected to by the                                 
                  Examiner as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be                                     
                  allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of                           
                  the base claim and any intervening claims.                                                               

                                                            2                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013