BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Renesas Mobile Corporation (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o51813 (20 December 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o51813.html Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o51813 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The invention is concerned with calibrating sleep clocks from fast clocks in wireless network apparatus, such as mobile telephones. Sleep clocks are low frequency clocks which run while devices are in an energy saving sleep mode; they are prone to frequency drift. Fast clocks are high frequency clocks which run when devices are awake, in an active mode. Calibration of a slow clock from a fast clock requires a device to be awake. A longer calibration period will render a higher quality calibration, but being awake for longer consumes more energy. According to the invention, a calibration is calculated and its quality determined, the length of time to a next calibration is estimated, it is determined whether the quality is sufficient to last that long, and, if not, the calibration measurement period is extended. Auxiliary amendments were offered at the hearing, specifying that the awake time of the apparatus could be extended to accommodate an extended calibration measurement period.
The Hearing Officer followed the four steps of the Pozzoli approach in determining whether the invention in its current form comprises an inventive step; and she found that it did not. She went on to consider the proposed amended invention in the same way, and found that it does comprise an inventive step. The application in its current form was refused. The applicant was allowed one month to formally file the proposed amendments.
