Ex Parte Sasai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13443344 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
1946-0776A 6466
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/443,344 04/10/2012
60803 7590 04/27/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Takashi Sasai
04/27/2017 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 TAKASHI SASAI, MAKOTO SATO,
HIROSHI KAKUDA, KAZUYA ODAGIRI, and
KOJINISHIMURA
Appeal 2017-002380
Application 13/443,344
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
4, 6—10, and 12—18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-002380
Application 13/443,344
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The patent application at issue concerns short-range wireless
communications. See Spec. 1. Claim 17 illustrates the claimed subject
matter:
17. A communication apparatus for providing network
connection service for an information processing device residing
in vicinity thereof, comprising:
a network connection unit configured to connect the
communication apparatus to a network;
a wireless communication device; and
a controller configured to:
control the wireless communication device to
transmit a plurality of inquiry messages during a plurality
of stages with altering communication ranges, and receive
response messages from one or more information
processing devices residing in the vicinity of the
communication apparatus;
discover the information processing device based
on the response messages;
preserve information relating to a receiving state or
frequency of receipt of the response messages for each
information processing device at the plurality of stages
from the respective communication ranges;
select the information processing device as a
connection object based on the preserved information;
determine a quantity of information processing
devices that have already been connected to the
communication apparatus;
disconnect one of the information processing
devices that have already been connected to the
communication apparatus when the quantity of
information processing devices that have already been
connected to the communication apparatus reaches a
predetermined threshold;
2
Appeal 2017-002380
Application 13/443,344
wirelessly connect the information processing
device selected as the connection object to the
communication apparatus via the wireless communication
device; and
provide data communication between the wirelessly
connected information processing device and the network
via the network connection unit,
wherein the network connection unit, the wireless
communication device, and the controller are each implemented
via at least one processor.
REJECTION
Claims 4, 6—10, and 12—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hollstrom et al. (US 7,239,891 B2; July 3, 2007),
Yoshizawa (US 7,039,445 Bl; May 2, 2006), Jonsson et al. (US 7,164,885
B2; Jan. 16, 2007), and Kita et al. (US 2003/0054821 Al; Mar. 20, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s combination of the cited art fails to
teach or suggest “a controller configured to . . . provide data communication
between the wirelessly connected information processing device and the
network via the network connection unit” as recited in claim 17. See App.
Br. 12—17; Reply Br. 4—6. In particular, Appellants contend Hollstrom does
not teach or suggest this limitation because
Hollstrom is merely first connecting its mobile telephone to a
digital camera to transfer pictures from the digital camera to the
mobile telephone, and then later in a separate step, a user may
publish the pictures of the mobile telephone at a certain WAP or
web server available on the Internet.
3
Appeal 2017-002380
Application 13/443,344
App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted). According to Appellants, Hollstrom does
not establish a direct connection between the Internet and external devices
such a digital camera, nor does Hollstrom concurrently create connections
between these devices and Internet. See id. at 13—14. Appellants also
contend the Examiner mapped Hollstrom’s mobile phone to the “wirelessly
connected information processing device” and the Internet to “the network.”
Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants argue “Hollstrom does not provide data
communication between the mobile phone and the [IJnternet, because the
mobile phone and the [IJnternet are never connected directly so as to provide
any communication of data . . . therebetween.” Id. at 5 (emphases omitted).
Appellants’ arguments are incommensurate with the scope of the
claims and mischaracterize the Examiner’s rejection. With respect to the
scope of the claims, the disputed limitation simply recites in relevant part
“provide data communication between the wirelessly connected information
processing device and the network via the network connection unit.” This
limitation does not require a direct connection between “the wirelessly
connected information processing device and the network,” nor does the
limitation require providing a concurrent connection between the device and
the network. This limitation merely requires providing data communication
between the device and the network “via the network connection unit.”
As for the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner found Hollstrom’s
external utility devices (devices 30, 40, and 50 in Figure 1) teach or suggest
the recited “wirelessly connected information processing device,” not
Hollstrom’s mobile phone as asserted by Appellants. See Final Act. 6. The
Examiner found Hollstrom teaches providing data communication
(transferring pictures from a camera 50 to the Internet 20) between the
4
Appeal 2017-002380
Application 13/443,344
wirelessly connected information processing device (devices 30, 40, 50) and
the network (Internet 20) via the network connection unit (antenna 10 of
mobile phone 1). See Final Act. 6 (citing Hollstrom Figs. 1, 2; 3:36—52,
5:35—47, 6:12—29). Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred.
Finally, even if we were to agree with Appellants that Hollstrom does
not teach the recited “providing” limitation, the Examiner also found
Jonsson teaches or suggests this limitation. Ans. 26 (“As further alternative
support in the same field of endeavor, Jonsson discloses the argument(s) as
related to the claimed feature(s).”); see also id. at 26—27 (citing Jonsson Fig.
3, 5, 8(a), 8(b); 5:49—52; 8:1—14, 16—29, 32—36). Appellants have not
persuasively addressed this finding.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
17. Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive
patentability arguments for claims 4, 6—10, 12—16, and 18, we also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 4, 6—10, and 12—18.
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
5