Appeal 2007-1603
Application 10/036,356
radio communication system using a closed-loop power control algorithm.
Tiedemann, Jr. teaches that 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. The Examiner maintains that claim 17 does not recite
any specific target value that is specific to the claimed invention (Answer 4).
We agree with the Examiner that the “required transmission quality target
value” is not recited as any specific value that is not taught in the prior art.
Appellants merely argue that “required transmission quality target value” is
not taught. Therefore, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
At the outset we note that Appellants’ main contention is that
Tiedemann, Jr. does not disclose changing the transmit power according to a
corresponding change in the required “transmission quality target value."
We note that Appellants have not identified any specific definition, nor are
we aware of any special definition in the art for this term. From our review
of the original Specification, we find no express definition of this term in the
Specification or any specific recitation of a numeric value or range in the
claim language. Therefore, we give this term its ordinary and customary
definition and find that as long as the transmit power is changed according to
a set methodology it would be according to a corresponding change in a
required transmission quality target value which would be set by the
corresponding methodology. 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. (Specification 1, ll. 21-26). Therefore we find that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013