Ex Parte Noh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2013

11645960 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
11/645,960 12/27/2006 Jeong-Min Noh 678-2594 (P14488) 8673
66547 7590 10/30/2013
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2013 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 JEONG-MIN NOH
____________

Appeal 2011-012548
Application 11/645,960
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-012548
Application 11/645,960

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to “a method and a multimode terminal for
minimizing a mute interval caused when call interruption occurs due to
handover between communication networks” (Spec. 1:14-15). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for minimizing a mute interval in a
multimode terminal having a first modem and a second modem,
which support different communication services, the method
comprising:

starting a handover according to a Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(UTRAN) command received through a first communication
network;

determining if a handover in the second modem has been
completed through a communication path interconnecting the
two modems while maintaining a voice path through the first
modem if the handover starts; and

switching a voice path through the first modem to a voice
path through the second modem, thereby performing
communication through a second communication network,
when the handover has been completed.

Appeal 2011-012548
Application 11/645,960

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Madour

Vanghi

Senarath
U.S. 2002/0021681 A1

U.S. 2005/0073977 A1

WO 2005/120109 A1
Feb. 21, 2002

Apr. 7, 2005

Dec. 15, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4-7, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Vanghi.
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vanghi and Senarath.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vanghi, Senarath, and Madour.

ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellant contends
[Vanghi] fails to teach determining if a handover in the second
modem has been completed through a communication path
interconnecting the two modems while maintaining a voice path
through the first modem if the handover starts, as in Claim 1,
because the only correspondence through a communication path
between the two modems is the service connect even from
cdmaMSM to the app processor at 1152, after which the
[Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS)
Mobile Station Modem (MSM)] is instructed to release the
datapath, which switches to cdmaMSM.
(App. Br. 7). We disagree with Appellant.
Appeal 2011-012548
Application 11/645,960

4
Vanghi describes a call handoff with reference to Figure 11B as
follows:
The cdma2000 MSM thereafter begins processing traffic
from the cdma2000 [Radio Access Network (RAN)] in
accordance with the specified service configuration. The
cdma2000 MSM also notifies the application processor that
service to the cdma2000 RAN is connected (step 1152). The
application processor then commands the UMTS MSM to
terminate the current UMTS call (step 1154), switches datapath
from the UMTS MSM to the cdma2000 MSM (e.g., switches
vocoder for a voice call), and starts processing data from
cdma2000 MSM (block 1156).

(Vanghi, ¶ [0093]). We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 4-5, 14)
that the notification from the cdma2000 MSM to the application processor
followed by the command from the application processor to the UMTS
MSM shows that Vanghi’s system describes a “communication path
interconnecting the two modems” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not require a direct
communication path from the second modem to the first modem (Ans. 14).
Moreover, as quoted above, Vanghi’s cdma2000 MSM begins processing
traffic and notifies the application processor that cdma2000 RAN service is
connected before the UMTS MSM terminates the UMTS call and the
application processor switches datapaths from the UMTS MSM to the
cdma2000 MSM (Vanghi, ¶ [0093]), which describes “determining if a
handover in the second modem has been completed . . . while maintaining a
voice path through the first modem if the handover starts” as recited in claim
1.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 4-7, 11, and 12 not specifically argued separately.
Appeal 2011-012548
Application 11/645,960

5

The Obviousness Rejection
Appellant presents no new arguments for claims 2, 3, and 8-10
showing that the cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to
disclose any limitation recited in claims 2, 3, and 8-10 (See App. Br. 8-9).
Rather, Appellant relies on the same arguments presented for claim 1, which
are not persuasive as discussed above. We are therefore not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 8-10.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner does not err in rejecting
claims 1, 4-7, 11, and 12.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner does not err in rejecting
claims 2, 3, and 8-10.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 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

llw