Ex Parte Kalhan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12202917 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/202,917 09/02/2008
32968 7590 04/04/2016
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 00152 2249
EXAMINER
TAHA,SHAQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-15 and 21-25. Claims 16-20 have been cancelled. (App. Br. 13-
16.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to an access node that receives a non-
traffic state wireless wide area network (WW AN) uplink signal transmitted
from a multimode wireless communication device in a non-traffic state to a
base station. (Spec. i-f 22; Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An access node comprising:
a wireless local area network (WLAN) interface configured to
exchange WLAN signals with a multimode wireless communication
device; and
a wireless wide area network (WW AN) interface configured to
detect a non-traffic state uplink signal transmitted to a WW AN from
the multimode wireless communication device while the multimode
wireless communication device is in a non-traffic state.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination ofKotzin (US 2006/0025138 Al; Feb. 2,
2006) and Lee (US 2002/0075823 Al; June 20, 2002).
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 7-10; see
also Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner improperly combined Kotzin and Lee.
The Examiner acknowledged that Kotzin does not disclose that
limitation "multimode wireless communication device is in a non-traffic
state" (Ans. 3) but relied upon Lee for a mobile station that transmits
2
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
location information while in a dormant state (id. at 3--4 ). The Examiner
further found that "Lee teaches that it is well known to have [a] system ...
receive, from a wireless communication device in non-traffic state" (id. at 3)
and concluded that "[i]t would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the
art when the invention was made to modify Kotzin et al. by including that
the multimode wireless communication device is in a non-traffic state" (id.
at 4). We agree with the Examiner.
Kotzin relates to "operating a communication device on a first
network and detecting and handing off the communication device when the
communication device is proximal to a second network." (i-f 2.) Figure 1 of
Kotzin illustrates block diagram of system 100, including terminal 120,
wireless local area network (WLAN) access point 110, and wireless wide
area network (WAN) base station 150. (i-f 13.) Figure 2 of Kotzin illustrates
an exemplary block diagram of WLAN access point 200 (i-f l 0), including
first transceiver 250, which can be a WLAN transceiver, and second
transceiver 260, which can be a WAN receiver (i-f 23). Kotzin explains that
"[t]he at least one transceiver may include a WLAN transceiver, such as the
first transceiver 250, configured to transmit and receive WLAN signals to
and from the terminal 120" and "[t]he at least one transceiver may also
include wireless WAN transceiver, such as the second transceiver 260,
configured to detect a wireless WAN uplink signal from the terminal 120."
(i-f 25.) Because first transceiver 250 of Kotzin is a WLAN transceiver and
second transceiver 260 is a WAN receiver, such that both transceivers detect
uplink signals with terminal 120, Kotzin teaches the limitations "a wireless
local area network (WLAN) interface configured to exchange WLAN
signals with a multimode wireless communication device" and "a wireless
3
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
wide area network (WWAN) interface configured to detect a non-tratlic
state uplink signal transmitted to a WW AN from the multimode wireless
communication device."
Lee relates to "[a] wireless packet data system efficiently manages
location of a packet call in a radio environment," in particular, a "mobile
station [that] transmits a location registration message to a target BSC [base
station controller] when moving to the target BSC adjacent to a source
BSC." (Abstract.) Lee explains that "the MS in the dormant state transmits
a registration message due to an idle handoff, and the location registration
message transmitted by the MS [mobile station] is received at a target BSC."
(i-f 95.) Because Lee explains that the mobile station can transmit while in a
dormant state, Lee teaches the limitation "while the multimode wireless
communication device is in a non-traffic state."
The combination of Kotzin and Lee is nothing more than
incorporating the known method of transmitting messages in the dormant
state for the mobile station of Lee, with the known WAN transceiver of
Kotzin, which detects and sends uplink signals, to yield predictable results.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) ("The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). This
combination would result in the WAN transceiver of Kotzin detecting uplink
signals transmitted from the mobile station while in a dormant state. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3--4) that modifying Kotzin to include the
mobile station of Lee, which transmits signals while dormant, would have
been obvious.
Appellant argues that
4
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
the WLAN access point of Kotzin may not be modified to
receive the location registration message transmitted by the MS
of Lee because such a modification would render Kotzin
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of detecting wireless
devices that are proximal to the WLAN access point and
connecting with the detected devices
because "any computational resources and communication bandwidth
expended by the WLAN access point of Kotzin, upon reception of the
location registration message from the MS of Lee, would be entirely wasted
and have no chance of establishing a connection with the MS of Lee." (App.
Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2--4.) Similarly, Appellant argues that "there is no
motivation to combine Kotzin and Lee" because
the combination of Kotzin and Lee would yield a situation in
which the WLAN access point of Kotzin would needlessly
utilize computational resources and communication bandwidth
every time a location registration message was received from
the MS of Lee since there is no possibility that the MS of Lee
will search for or connect with the WLAN access point of
Kotzin instead of the target BSC to which the MS of Lee
desires to be registered.
(App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4--5.) However, the Examiner relied upon
Lee for the general teaching that dormant state transmission by a mobile
station is well-known, rather than bodily incorporating such mobile station
and its target BSC into WLAN access point 200 ofKotzin.
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Kotzin and Lee to
reject independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-8 depend from independent claim 1, and
Appellant has not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these
5
Appeal2014-005229
Application 12/202,917
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-8 under 35 U .S.C.
§ 103 (a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 21 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 21, as well as dependent claims 10-15,
20, and 22-25, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-15 and 21-25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6