Ex Parte Kanerva

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2012

09893792 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MIKKO KANERVA
____________

Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 73-90. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a telecommunications system
where a first station requests a connection to one of a plurality of second
Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792

2
stations where the request includes a location criteria and wherein the
connection is established based upon the location criteria. See Abstract.
Claim 73 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
73. A method comprising:

receiving a request from a mobile station to connect to one of a
plurality of other mobile stations, wherein the request specifies a
location criteria;

determining location information for each of the other mobile
stations; and

selecting one of the other mobile stations to connect to the mobile
station based on the location criteria and the determined location
information.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Nojima US 5,933,080 Aug. 3, 1999
Neubauer US 5,953,673 Sep. 14, 1999
De Brito US 6,529,735 B1 Mar. 4, 2003
(filed Nov. 20, 1998)
Tognazzini EP 0810803 A2 May 28, 1997

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 73-90 under 35 USC §102(b) as
anticipated by Neubauer. Ans. 5-8.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 73-76, 78-82, 84-88, and 90 under
35 USC §102(b) as anticipated by Tognazzini. Ans. 8-12.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 18,
2010; the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 1, 2011; and, the Reply Brief
filed April 1, 2011.
Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792

3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 77, 83, and 89 under 35 USC
§103(a) as anticipated by Tognazzini and De Brito. Ans. 12-13.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 77, 83, and 89 under 35 USC
§103(a) as anticipated by Tognazzini and Nojima. Ans. 13-14.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under §102 has the Examiner erred
by finding that Tognazzini discloses a communications system where a
request for a connection from a mobile station specifies a location criteria
and wherein the location of other stations is determined and one station is
selected to connect to the calling station based upon the location criteria and
the determined location?

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that Tognazzini fails to anticipate the invention set
forth within independent claims 73, 79 and 85 as a result of an alleged
failure of Tognazzini to disclose a communication request “wherein the
request specifies a location criteria…and…determining location information
for each of the other mobile stations.” App. Br. 9.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Tognazzini establishes
communication "based on information stored in a database at a called
station” and that the calling station, after submitting a query, receives back
Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792

4
responses from those stations where stored information satisfied the query,
without determining location information for the other mobile stations. Id. at
9-10.
The Examiner finds that Tognazzini discloses a system where a
communication request specifies location criteria, noting that the query
transmitted with a communication request “can be against information about
location, status, or history of individual stations.” Ans. 9 (citing col. 3, ll.
50-52 (emphasis added)).
The Examiner also finds that Tognazzini discloses that
communication is established with a selected station based upon the location
determination and the location criteria, citing col. 13, ll. 12-42. Id. at 9.
Notwithstanding Appellant’s arguments, we find that Appellant’s
claims do not specify where the determination of the location of other
stations takes place. Further, the cited portions of Tognazzini relied upon by
the Examiner (at col. 13, ll. 12-15) disclose a communication request which
utilizes “closeness to the driver’s current GPS location as a selection
criterion” and wherein communication with a selected mobile station is then
established by the calling station based upon that criteria and the location of
the called mobile station.
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
73-76, 78-82, 84-88, and 90 as anticipated under §102 by Tognazzini.
Appellant has not responded to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 77,
83, and 89 under 35 USC §103(a) as anticipated by Tognazzini and Nojima.
Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792

5
Arguments which the Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2008).
We are therefore not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 77, 83, and 89 under 35 USC §103(a) as anticipated by Tognazzini
and Nojima.
Finally, with respect to the Examiner’s rejections based wholly, or
partially on Neubauer, in view of our affirmance of all pending claims with
respect to Tognazzini or the combination of Tognazzini and Nojima (supra),
we need not (and do not) separately address the other rejections of
Appellant’s claims (with respect to Neubauer and a combination of
Neubauer and De Brito). “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any
of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of
the examiner on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 73-90.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 73-90 is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-007500
Application 09/893,792

6
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

pgc