Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
and set forth how Tiedemann, Jr. teaches the claimed invention. Therefore,
we conclude that the Examiner has set forth a sufficient initial prima facie
case of anticipation of independent claim 17.
Here, we do not find that Appellants have identified an express
definition in the Specification for "transmission quality target value,"
wherein the Specification is directed to the signal to interference ratio or SIR
yet the claim does not use the same language. (Specification 1, ll. 21-26).
Therefore, we conclude that the "transmission quality target value" must be
broader than this specific SIR and apply the art in this manner.
The Examiner maintains that Tiedemann, Jr. teaches changing power
in accordance with the quality of the signal corresponding to a change in
signal quality and the power can increase or decrease to improve the quality.
The Examiner maintains that:
[w]hen the signal quality in the propagation path deteriorates due to
fading conditions, the system detects the change and responds to the
change in order to maintain or improve the quality of the signal in the
propagation path. It is to be noted that it a change in power requires a
change in energy value, as disclosed in col. 8, lines 39-67). Clearly,
changing power in accordance to a change in transmission quality is
readable on Tiedemann's disclosure.”
(Answer 3-4). Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance upon the
propagation path is a reason for changing the transmit power, while
Appellants’ claimed "according to a corresponding change in the required
transmission quality target value" is a way (method) of changing the
transmit power. (Br. 11). Appellants go on to argue that while there are
different possible ways of changing transmit power, the present invention
has for its object one particular method which is not disclosed or suggested
by Tiedemann, Jr. and which is a more efficient way of changing the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013