10529330 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

Ex Parte Jatschka

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 25, 2013

10529330 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/529,330 10/07/2005 Thomas Jatschka 2002P13843WOUS 8651 7590 11/25/2013 Siemens Corporation Intellectual Property Department 170 Wood Avenue South Iselin, NJ 08830 EXAMINER NOBILE, DANIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/25/2013 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte THOMAS JATSCHKA ____________________ Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 2 Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 10, 15-21, and 23-28. Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The disclosure relates to a method for logging into a mobile terminal at an access point of a local communications network. Spec. 1:3-5. Claims 10 and 19, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter: 10. A method for the initial registration of a mobile terminal at an access point of a local communication network, the access point having a first radio transmitting and receiving unit operating at a first transmitting power for establishing communication between the mobile terminal and the local communication network, the method comprising: detecting the mobile terminal by the access point; providing a signaling which includes transmitting a first message to the mobile terminal after the detecting the mobile terminal by the access point; the first message indicates an artificially received first signal level at the access point, the artificially received first signal level being higher than a signal receiving level actually measured by the access point, the artificially received first signal level formed as a received signal strength indicator value, the first message instructs the mobile terminal to reduce a second transmission power of a second radio transmitting and receiving unit of the mobile terminal so 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Siemens Aktiengesellschaft. Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 3 that a transmit/receive process is only carried out in a near filed2 [sic] of the mobile terminal; and reducing the first transmitting power of the first radio transmitting and receiving unit after the signaling, the first transmitting power is reduced such that the communication between the mobile terminal and the local communication network is enabled exclusively within a near field of the access point, the near field having a smaller area than a standard enabling area defined by all locations enabling the communication between the mobile terminal and the local communication network when the mobile terminal is present at the locations and the first radio transmitting and receiving unit is operating at the first non-reduced transmitting power. 19. The method according to claim 10, wherein the first and second transmitting and receiving units operate according to a short-range radio standard. REFERENCES Irvin 6,029,074 Feb. 22, 2000 Cotton 6,148,205 Nov. 14, 2000 Juurikko US 2003/0003868 A1 Jan. 2, 2003 IEEE Computer Society, 802.15.1: IEEE Standard for Information technology - Telecommunications and information technology exchange between systems – Local and metropolitan networks – Specific requirements; Part 15.1 Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specification for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANS) (June 14, 2002) (“IEEE Standard 802.15.1”) 2 Appellant’s claim appendix and amended claims filed January 8, 2010, refer to the “near filed.” See, e.g., App. Br. 11. From the context and usage throughout the rest of claim 10, we understand the intent to have been “near field” and use this interpretation throughout the opinion. Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 4 REJECTIONS Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, and Irvin. Claims 15-20 and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, Irvin, and Juurikko. GROUPING OF CLAIMS In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 10 and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but did not make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See id. ISSUES (1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, and Irvin teaches or suggests “to reduce a second transmission power of second radio transmitting and receiving unit of the mobile terminal so that a transmit/receive process is only carried out in a near field of the mobile terminal,” as recited in representative claim 10? (2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, Irvin, and Juurikko would teach or suggest to one of skill in the art a method wherein “the first and second transmitting and receiving units operate according to a short-range radio standard,” as recited in representative claim 19? Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 5 ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 10 and 21 Appellant asserts that because Irvin relates to cellular communications, and not an in-home wireless network as taught in Cotton, any reduction in transmitting power in the mobile terminal of Irvin would still result in communications outside of the near field and would not “prevent e[a]vesdropping.” App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as they are directed to the references individually and not as combined by the Examiner. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner does not seek to incorporate Irvin’s teaching as a whole into the system of Cotton or to incorporate Irvin’s method of cellular communications. Ans. 14-15. Instead, the Examiner relies on Irvin to demonstrate that using an artificial power level control parameter to lower the transmission power of a mobile device is a known technique. Ans. 6-7, 14-15. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments focused on the cellular system of Irvin do not sufficiently address the combination of Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, and Irvin as set forth by the Examiner to persuade us of Examiner error. See App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues that the combination of Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, and Irvin does not teach a system wherein “the local communication network is enabled exclusively within a near field of the access point to prevent e[a]vesdropping.” Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner found, pointing to specific passages of Cotton, that communications between the base station and access device occur exclusively in the near field. Ans. 5; Cotton, col. 5, Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 6 35-39 (noting that “only devices next to each other will register”). Appellant’s conclusory statements are insufficient to persuade us the Examiner erred in this finding. See Reply Br. 2. Appellant also argues that one of skill in the art would not be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Cotton, IEEE Standard 802.15.1, and Irvin because Irvin is concerned with reducing battery power and not “security during registration.” App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner found one of skill in the art would combine the recited references to derive a device that is both capable of communicating solely within the near field and compatible with well-known industry standards, such as Bluetooth. Ans. 6-7. Appellant’s augments do not persuasively explain why Irvin’s stated purpose of reducing battery power consumption would dissuade one ordinarily skilled in the art from combining the teachings of Irvin with those of Cotton and IEEE Standard 802.15.1. Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 21. Claims 19 and 27 We similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 27. The Examiner found Juurikko teaches using a “short-range radio standard” and one of skill in the art would incorporate this short-range radio system to reduce development costs and design time. Ans. 10-11; Juurikko, [0021]; see also IEEE Standard 802.15.1, ¶ 6.2.2 (noting that Bluetooth is a short- range radio system). Appellant argues that Irvin’s cellular technology is not equivalent to a short-range radio standard and would result in a signal area much larger than a short-range transmission area. App. Br. 9. As noted Appeal 2011-005872 Application 10/529,330 7 above, Appellant’s arguments related to cellular communications are not persuasive because they are directed to the Irvin reference individually and not as combined by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 and 27. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 15-21, and 23-28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc