Ex Parte Csapo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 23, 2012

10744226 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN S. CSAPO, RONALD J. WEBB, and PHILIP Y. SOHN
____________

Appeal 2010-000593
Application 10/744,226
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000593
Application 10/744,226

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
The disclosed invention identifies mobile stations that frequently drop
calls even when they are located in areas of good RF coverage, to thereby
identify mobile stations that are operating out of performance standards and
need to be replaced. (Spec. ¶ [011].)
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. For use in association with a wireless network comprising a
plurality of base stations capable of communicating with mobile
stations located in a coverage area of said wireless network, a radio
frequency (RF) coverage server capable of receiving from said
mobile stations geographic location data indicating positions of said
mobile stations when communication links to said wireless network
were dropped, wherein said RF coverage server is capable of
identifying areas of good RF coverage and areas of poor RF coverage
in said wireless network and wherein said RF coverage server is
further capable of identifying a first one of said mobile stations that
frequently drops communication links to said wireless network when
said first mobile station is disposed outside of said poor RF coverage
areas.

Appeal 2010-000593
Application 10/744,226

3
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmitt (U.S. 6,459,695 B1) in view of
Smith (U.S. 6, 721,572 B1). (Ans. 3-5.)
The Examiner rejected claims 5-8 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Schmitt, Smith, and Gnesda (U.S. 6, 970,721
B1). (Ans. 5-6.)

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does Smith teach or suggest “identifying a…mobile stations that
frequently drops communication links…outside…poor RF coverage areas,”
as recited in independent claim 1, and as similarly recited in each of the
other independent claims (i.e., claims 1, 9 and 17)?

ANALYSIS
Issue - Claims 1-20
Appellants argue that Smith does not teach or suggest “[i]dentifying a
mobile station that frequently drops communication links while outside poor
coverage areas.” (App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner asserts
that Smith discloses a “dead zone (poor RF coverage areas) location which
cause mobile station dropping call ….” (Ans. 7, citing Smith, col. 10, ll. 17-
24; col. 15, ll. 10-13; and col.16, ll. 1-6 and Fig. 3.) As explained by
Appellants, however, the Examiner’s discussion and the cited portions of
Smith teach that a call is interrupted by the system “to warn a user that
Appeal 2010-000593
Application 10/744,226

4
he/she is approaching a dead zone, so that the user may finish
communicating before being dropped.” (App. Br. 16.) In other words, in
Smith, the system warns a mobile station that the system (e.g., a base station)
will soon drop a call. In contrast, the claim requires the identification of
mobile stations that cause calls to be dropped.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 9 or 17, or the claims that depend from those claims (i.e., claims 2-
8, 10-16, and 18-20).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20.

REVERSED

tj