Ex Parte Trossen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2009

10137340 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DIRK TROSSEN and HEMANT M. CHASKAR
____________________

Appeal 2009-004981
Application 10/137,3401
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: June 18, 2010
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellants submitted a Request for Rehearing dated December 28,
2009 on a Decision of this Board dated October 29, 2009, affirming the final
rejection of claims 2-18, 21-39, 44-52 and 54-57.

1 Application filed May 3, 2002. The real party in interest is Nokia, Inc.
Appeal 2009-004981
Application 10/137,340

Appellants contend that this Board misapprehended certain points in
rendering its decision. More particularly, Appellants contend that the Grilo
reference fails to teach the mobile terminal “sending a handoff trigger to the
first access router to transfer the application context to the second access
router.” (RR 4, middle). The Board had relied on this teaching being
supplied by Grilo (Grilo col. 13, ll. 45 to 65; Decision 8, middle).
On tracing the transfer of signals SHIN, SHACK, SHREQ and
SHREP in Grilo (id.), we now observe that Appellants are correct. The
processor in Grilo does not demonstrate performing the step of sending a
handoff trigger to the first router (the “old access point” in Grilo). The
mobile terminal communicates with the new access point in that reference
(Id.).
Claim 2 and dependent claims 3 to 18, and 56, plus independent claim
47, contain the limitation discussed above, and were rejected in error. Claim
21 contains close to the same wording of that limitation, and also was
rejected in error (RR 5, top).

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In view of the findings and analysis above, we grant Appellants
request and reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2 to 18,
21, 47 and 56. The rejection of claims 46 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
for being obvious over Grilo in view of Reza remains affirmed. The
rejection under the same statute of claims 22 to 39, 44 to 45, 48 to 52, 54
and 57 for being obvious over Grilo, Reza and Roy also remains affirmed.

REHEARING GRANTED
2
Appeal 2009-004981
Application 10/137,340

AFFIRMED IN PART

peb

BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
1100 13th STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
3