11490166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

Ex Parte Parikh

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2015

11490166 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AJAY S. PARIKH ____________ Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–9 and 11–26 2 as obvious. Claim 10 has previously been cancelled. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appeal Brief identifies ATC Technologies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Id. at. 12. 3 Id. at 5. Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 2 We REVERSE. 4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method of powering a communications device. See Abstract. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 26 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some paragraphing added: 1. A method for powering a satellite communication device that communicates with a satellite, comprising: receiving a first power mode control signal having a first voltage when a handset is turned on and is coupled to the satellite communication device; operating the satellite communication device in a first power mode in response to the first power mode control signal received by the satellite communication device, the first power mode representing a standby mode in which the satellite communication device is configured to receive signals from the satellite; operating the satellite communication device in a second power mode in response to a second power mode control signal received by the satellite communication device when the handset is in a transmission mode associated with transmitting signals to the satellite, the second power mode representing a full power mode; and maintaining the satellite communication device in the 4 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 3, 2012 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2012 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed July 21, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 3 first power mode when the transmission mode is terminated. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Natsukawa US 6,163,677 Dec. 19, 2000 Dent US 6,529,707 B1 Mar. 4, 2003 Ganesan US 2005/0147049 A1 July 7, 2005 The claims stand rejected as follows: 5 1. Claims 9, 11–17, and 18–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Natsukawa, Ganesan, and Dent. Ans. 5–11. 2. Claims 20–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Natsukawa, Ganesan, and Dent. Ans. 11–12. 3. Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Natsukawa, Ganesan, and Dent. Ans. 12. 4. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Natsukawa, Ganesan, and Dent. Ans. 12. 5 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 4 ANALYSIS OBVIOUSNESS OVER NATSUKAWA, GANESAN, AND DENT Claims 1–4 and 8 Claims 1–4 and 8 stand rejected over the art and arguments applied against Claims 9 and 11–17. Ans. 12. The Examiner finds that Natsukawa teaches a radiotelephone satellite communications device and system, but that Natsukawa fails to teach limitations relating to the claimed “transmit a first power mode control signal to the satellite communication device when the radiotelephone device is powered up and the satellite communication device is coupled to the radiotelephone device via the wired connection.” Ans. 6, 12. The Examiner finds that Ganesan teaches a radiotelephone device that transmits first and second power mode control signals to a satellite communication device. Ans. 6–7. Appellant contends that Ganesan is directed to switching between cellular and voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) networks and has no disclosure relating to powering a satellite communication device. Appellant contends Ganesan discloses that when the mobile communication device enters a Wi-Fi access point coverage area, a Wi-Fi signal level monitor 8 activates timer 7 to send a wake up signal to network switch unit 6 to change the state of network switch unit 6 from a sleep mode to a standby mode. Ganesan merely discloses sending a wake up signal to cellular and Wi-Fi modules when a Wi-Fi access point is detected. App. Br. 14–15. The Examiner finds that Ganesan suggests that Wi-Fi module 4 is Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 5 adapted to terminate connection to the VoIP network and to switch off connection to audio/video amplifier 5 after receiving the teardown signal. Then, the Cellular module 4 is adapted to activate connection to the cellular network and to switch on connection to audio/video amplifier 5 after receiving a Wi-Fi link-up signal. The Wi-Fi module 4 and satellite communication device are both related in the wireless field. Ganesan’s Wi- Fi module 4 and the claimed ‘satellite communication device’ each have the same inventive concept of regulating power consumption of a communication device, i.e., the Wi-Fi module or the satellite communication device. Therefore, Ganesan suggests the claimed limitation “transmit a first power mode control signal to the satellite communication device when the radiotelephone device is powered up.” Ans. 13 (citing Ganesan, ¶ 31). The Examiner cites Paragraph 31 of Ganesan as teaching regulating power consumption. However, we fail to find such teaching. Ganesan Paragraph 31 teaches that a communications link exists as a VoIP session over a WiFi connection through A/V amplifier 5. Ganesan discloses that the communication link continues uninterrupted when the WiFi connection is terminated in favor of a cellular connection. We find no teaching in Ganesan’s Paragraph 31 relating to power consumption. The Examiner also cites Ganesan Paragraphs 20 and 24 for this teaching. Ans. 6. Paragraph 20 discloses sleep, standby, and full active modes and that the full active mode consumes more power than either the sleep or standby modes. Ganesan, ¶¶ 20, 24. However, we do not find that either passage teaches “transmit a first Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 6 power mode control signal to the satellite communication device when the radiotelephone device is powered up and the satellite communication device is coupled to the radiotelephone device via the wired connection,” as claimed. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–4 and 8. 6 Claims 5–7 Appellant contends that the rejection of Claims 5–7 should be reversed at least in view of their dependence from Claim 1. App. Br. 18–19. We agree. Claims 9, 11, and 13–17 Appellant contends that the rejection of Claims 9, 11, and 13–17 should be reversed for at least the reasons discussed above. App. Br. 19–23. We agree. Claim 12 Appellant contends that the rejection of Claim 12 should be reversed at least in view of its dependence from Claim 9. App. Br. 23. We agree. Claims 18 and 19 6 We do not reach the merits of various additional arguments as our agreement with Appellant as indicated in our discussion infra is dispositive of this appeal. Appeal 2012-010579 Application 11/490,166 7 Appellant contends that the rejection of Claims 18 and 19 should be reversed at least for the reasons advanced for the patentability of Claim 1. App. Br. 24–25. We agree. Claims 20–22 and 23–25 Appellant contends that the rejection of Claims 20–22 and 23–25 should be reversed for at least the reasons discussed above. App. Br. 26. We agree. Claim 26 Appellant contends that the rejection of independent Claim 26 should be reversed at least because Ganesan fails to teach transmission of power control signals. App. Br. 27–29. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find that Ganesan teaches the transmission of power-control signals. We, therefore, decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 26. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1–9 and 11–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED kme