Ex Parte Turner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2012

10075058 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SIMON TURNER
____________________

Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a method for an access terminal to
monitor a paging channel from a second wireless network while placing an
active communications session with a first wireless network on pause;
wherein, the access terminal issues a pause command to the first network
prior to monitoring incoming pages from the second network and issues a
resume command at the end of a pre-determined time period (Abstract;
Spec. 6-7, ¶¶ [1032]-[1035]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of conducting wireless data communications
comprising:
receiving a packet data transmission from a first wireless
network;
transmitting a pause command to the first wireless network;
reconfiguring a receiver from a mode corresponding to
communication with the first wireless network to a mode
corresponding to communication with a second wireless network;
monitoring a paging channel of the second wireless network;
reconfiguring the receiver from the mode corresponding to
communication with the second wireless network to the mode
corresponding to communication with the first wireless network; and
transmitting a resume command to the first wireless network.

Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lin US 6,269,402 B1 July 31, 2001
Rajaniemi US 6,487,399 B1 Nov. 26, 2002
Vanghi US 6,937,861 B2 Aug. 30, 2005

Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-24, and 26-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vanghi in view of Lin.
Claims 4, 7, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vanghi in view of Lin and Rajaniemi.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Vanghi and Lin teaches or would have
suggested “transmitting a pause command to the first wireless network”
(claim 1, emphasis added). In particular, the issue turns on whether Lin’s
teaching of transmitting a suspend request to a network would have
suggested the pause command of claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Vanghi
1. Vanghi discloses an access terminal 14 that is enabled to
suspend a reverse link traffic channel (IS-856) communication with a radio
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

4
network 22 to perform idle state processing associated with the IS-2000
radio network 28 (Figs. 1 and 4; col. 8, ll. 20-24).
2. When the IS-856 communication is suspended, the access
terminal 14 begins monitoring its time of suspension; and simultaneously,
upon detecting loss of the reverse link traffic channel, the radio network 22
begins timing the duration that the link is inactive using, for example, a fade
timer (Figs.1 and 4; col. 8, ll. 25-30).
3. Upon completion of IS-2000 idle state processing, if its
suspension timer has not expired, the access terminal 14 resumes the IS-856
communication with the access network 12 using the communication
resources previously assigned to it by the radio network 22 (Figs. 1 and 4;
col. 8, ll. 40-47).
Lin
4. Lin discloses a method for providing seamless communication
across bearers in a wireless communication system; wherein, upon receiving
an indication of an interruption of communication between the client and
server, both the client and server set up a session transition control block in
anticipation of resuming communication (Figs. 1 and 5; col. 3, ll. 17-22).
5. The interruption may be the result of a suspension request by
one of the network entities or due to a break in the communications link
between the client and the server (col. 5, ll. 60-63). In particular, the server,
client, or the bearer network may suspend the communication session for
any reason by issuing a suspension request (col. 5, ll. 15-26; col. 5, ll. 60-
63). Alternatively, the communication session may be interrupted when the
connection between the client and the bearer network is broken (col. 5, ll.
25-30).
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

5
6. When the communication is interrupted (step 512) for either
reason, the client and the server begin a timer (col. 6, ll. 8-10). During the
reconnecting step 516, if the session has merely been suspended and the
timer has not expired, the client may issue a resume command to resume the
communication session over a different bearer network or over the same
bearer network but with different network parameters (Fig. 5; col. 6, ll. 14-
23).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-24, and 26-31
Appellant does not provide separate arguments with respect to
independent claims 1, 10, 16, 17, 27, and 31 (App. Br. 6-12). Appellant
does not provide arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,
11- 15, 18-24, 26, and 28-30 (App. Br. 12). Accordingly, we select claim 1
as being representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant contends that “[t]he Vanghi and Lin references, either alone
or in combination, fail to explicitly or inherently teach or fairly suggest
transmitting a pause command to the first wireless network” (App. Br. 6,
emphasis omitted), because “[t]he suspension request of Lin permanently
terminates the first connection over the first bearer link” and “the suspended
link [disclosed in Lin] is never resumed” (App. Br. 8). Appellant argues that
“[t]he proposed combination of the Vanghi and Lin references is improper”
because “if the teachings of Lin were applied to those of Vanghi as in the
proposed modification by the Examiner, Vanghi would actually terminate
the first radio network connection before briefly communicating with the
second radio network” and “Vanghi would therefore be rendered
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

6
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of thereafter continuing
communication with the first radio network without having to completely re-
establish such a connection.” (App. Br. 10).
However, the Examiner finds that “the ‘suspension request’ cited by
Lin [] is the same as the claimed ‘pause command’ because the ‘suspension
request’ later reconnects the communication session over the same bearer
network 106 by transmitting a resume command” (Ans. 9). The Examiner
notes that “the claimed invention only requires reconfiguring a receiver to
establish data transmission from the first wireless network to a second
wireless network by transmitting a pause command and vice versa back to
the first network by transmitting a resume command” (id.).
To determine whether the combination of Vanghi and Lin teaches or
would have suggested a method of conducting wireless data communications
“transmitting a pause command to the first wireless network” (claim 1,
emphasis added) , we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “pause command”
means, includes, or represents other than it is transmitted to a wireless
network. Thus, we give “transmitting a pause command to the first wireless
network” (claim 1) its broadest reasonable interpretation as transmitting an
instruction that notifies the network that the client wishes to temporarily
suspend action, as consistent with the Specification and as specifically
defined in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

7
Vanghi discloses an access terminal that is enabled to suspend a
reverse link traffic channel communication with a first radio network to
perform idle state processing associated with a second radio network (FF 1).
Both the access terminal and the network set timers to monitor the time of
the suspension (FF 2). If the timer has not expired, the access terminal
resumes the communication with the first radio network (FF 3). We find
that suspension of the communication comprises temporarily suspending
activity with the first radio network.
In addition, Lin is directed to a method for providing seamless
communication across bearers in a wireless communication system; wherein,
upon receiving an indication of an interruption of communication, a session
transition control block is established in anticipation of resuming
communication (FF 4). The interruption may be the result of a suspension
request by one of the network entities or due to a break in the
communications link between the client and the server (FF 5). In particular,
the server, client, or the bearer network may suspend the communication
session for any reason by issuing a suspension request; wherein a timer is set
to time the suspension (id.). When the session has merely been suspended
and the timer has not expired, the client may issue a resume command to
resume the communication session over a different bearer network or over
the same bearer network but with different network parameters (FF 6).
Particularly, since the communication session can be resumed over the same
bearer network, we find that suspension request is a transmitted instruction
that notifies the network that the client wishes to temporarily suspend action
in anticipation of resuming communication with the same network (FF 4- 6).
That is, we find that “transmitting a pause command to the first wireless
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

8
network” (claim 1) reads on Lin’s suspension request that is issued to the
network. We find that even though the communication session is resumed
over the same bearer network with different network parameters, the claim is
silent as to any network parameters associated with the network and the
claim does not require that associated network parameters remain the same.
Accordingly, in view of our claim construction above, we find that the
combination of Vanghi and Lin at least suggests providing “transmitting a
pause command to the first wireless network,” as specifically required by
claim 1.
Though Appellant contends that “if the teachings of Lin were applied
to those of Vanghi as in the proposed modification by the Examiner . . . .
Vanghi would [] be rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (App.
Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the “motivation [to
combine the references] is to configure data transmission from a first
network to a second network by transmitting a suspension request the first
network” (Ans.11).
Since Lin discloses that a suspension request and a resume command
may be issued by a client (FF 4-6), we conclude that the combination of one
known element (Vanghi’s suspension of a reverse link traffic channel
communication with a radio network) with another (Lin’s transmission of a
suspend request) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention. That is, we find that suspending
communication with a network as taught by Vanghi in addition to Lin’s
transmission of a suspension request is no more than a simple arrangement
of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

9
to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U. S. at 420-21.
Appellant has presented no evidence that combining Vanghi’s teaching of
suspending reverse link traffic channel communication with a radio network
so that it can perform idle state processing associated with another network
with transmitting a suspension request of Lin was “uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious
step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Vanghi in view of
Lin; and independent claims 10, 16, 17, 27, and 31 and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9,
11-15, 18-24, 26, and 28-30 depending from claims 1, 10, 17, and 27 which
have been grouped therewith.
Claims 4, 7, and 25
Appellant argues that “Rajaniemi as applied fails to cure the
deficiencies of Vanghi and Lin discussed above with regard to independent
claims 1 and 17” and that dependent claims 4, 7, and 25 are patentable over
the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to parent claims
1 and 17 (App. Br. 12-13).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Vanghi and Lin at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We therefore
Appeal 2010-001761
Application 10/075,058

10
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 7, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claims 1 and 17, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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