Ex Parte Kalhan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

11565266 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111565,266 11130/2006
32968 7590 06/15/2016
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
AmitKALHAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
TUTL 00104 3901
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
KII-USPatents@kyocera.com
Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-11, 15, and 17-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to apparatus, system and method for
managing wireless local area network service to a multi-mode portable
communication device. Spec. 1, para. 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An access point comprising:
a wireless local area network (WLAN) interface
configured to exchange WLAN signals with a multi-mode
wireless communication device;
a wireless wide area network (WW AN) interface
configured to send a device proximity message to a WWAN, the
device proximity message based on a proximity of the multi-
mode wireless communication device to the access point; and
a controller configured to generate the device proximity
message based on a proximity of the multi-mode wireless
communication device to the access point, the proximity
calculated using a power control indicator extracted from a
forward link signal and a signal characteristic of a reverse link
WW AN signal, the forward link WW AN signal transmitted from
the WW AN and received at the access point, the reverse link
WWAN signal received at the access point and transmitted by
the multi-mode wireless communication device.
1 Appellant indicates that Kyocera Corporation is the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cedervall et al. US 6,011,974
Kim et al. US 2003/0081572 Al
Overy et al. US 2003/0129993 Al
Islam et al. US 2005/0090277 Al
Lee et al. US 2005/0197132 Al
Kotzin US 2006/0025138 Al
(hereinafter referred to as Kotzin '138)
Kotzin US 2006/0040656 Al
(hereinafter referred to as Kotzin '656)
Rimoni et al. US 2007 /0049276 Al
REJECTIONS
Jan.4, 2000
May 1, 2003
July 10, 2003
Apr. 28, 2005
Sept. 8, 2005
Feb.2,2006
Feb.23,2006
Mar. 1, 2007
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable by Kotzin '138 in view of Overy and
further in view of Kim.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy, and Kim, and further in view of
Cedervall.
Claims 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy, and Kim, and further in view of
Islam.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy, and Kim, and further in view of
Rimoni.
3
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy, and Kim, and further in view of
Kotzin '656 and Cedervall.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy and Kim, and further in view of
Kotzin '656 and Cedervall.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kotzin '138, Overy, and Kim, and further in view of Lee.
ANALYSIS
With respect independent claim 1, Appellant contends that
independent claim 1 recites "the proximity calculated using a power control
indicator extracted from a forward link signal and a signal characteristic of a
reverse link WW AN signal, the forward link WW AN signal transmitted
from the WW AN and received at the access point, the reverse link WW AN
signal received at the access point and transmitted by the multi-mode
wireless communication device" and the individual references do not teach
or suggest this claim feature. (App. Br. 10; see generally Reply Br. 2--4).
Appellant clarifies in the Reply Brief that the Examiner has not shown that
the claimed "proximity is calculated from both information extracted from a
reverse link WW AN signal and information extracted from a forward link
WWAN signal." (Reply Br. 3). We agree with Appellant.2 Appellant's
2 The Examiner should evaluate the written description support for
Appellant's proffered inclusion of the information from the two signals
together for the generation of the proximity message. We note that the
Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter (App. Br. 5---6) provides citations to
separate use of each of the information from each signal which are general
discussions at a high level where "The particular factors and calculation
4
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
arguments respond to the Examiner's limited citations to the Kotzin '138
reference set forth in the statement of the grounds of rejection. (Final Act.
4--5).
The Examiner provides a brief response to Appellant's argument. The
Examiner maintains:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Appellant's
characterization of Kotzin. The Examiner submits that the
Appellant ignores the disclosure in paragraph [0018], where
Kotzin teaches " . . . it can be further possible to allow a
wireless WAN receiver in the WLAN access point that can
receive the wireless WAN downlink to allow synchronization.
This information can facilitate the WLAN AP's 110 receiving
of the terminal's 120 uplink wireless signal and terminal's
120 ID determination . . . " It is understood that said "this
information" is received by the WLAN access point on the WAN
downlink (i.e. forward link), and "this information" facilitates the
WLAN AP's reception of terminal 120's uplink signal.
Therefore, contrary to Appellant's characterization, Kotzin's
access point can also be configured to obtain control information
on the forward link (i.e. WAN downlink). As such, the proposed
combination is proper and renders the claimed limitation
obvious.
(Ans. 2-3). We find the Examiner's response does not specifically address
the claim limitation that both information from the forward link signal (a
power control indicator) and information from the reverse link signal (a
signal characteristic) are used to generate/calculate proximity.
With respect to Appellant's additional arguments regarding the
combination, we need not address Appellant's further arguments regarding
techniques depend on the type of WW AN communication system 104."
(Spec. i-f 37). As a result, Appellant has not identified in the Appeal Brief
corresponding support for the claim language.
5
Appeal2014-006516
Application 11/565,266
change in the respective functions and the proposed combination would
change the principle of operation of the prior art. (App. Br. 11-13).
With respect to independent claims 15 and 19, Appellant presents
similar arguments as advanced with respect to independent claim 1. We find
the claim language to be similar to that discussed above with respect to
illustrative claim 1. The Examiner has not provided separate discussions in
the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 3). Consequently, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claims 15 and 19 and their respective
dependent claims based upon the reasons addressed with respect to claim 1
above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 15, and 17-23 based
upon obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1-11, 15, and 17-23.
REVERSED
6