Ex Parte Vesuna et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 2012

10837439 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SAROSH VESUNA and CHRIS ZEGELIN
____________

Appeal 2009-011446
Application 10/837,439
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-3 and 7-9. Claims 4-6 and 10-12 have been indicated as including
allowable subject matter, but objected to for being dependent on rejected
base claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-011446
Application 10/837,439

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates “to wireless data communications
systems, particularly systems using standardized protocols, and also to
wireless systems for locating items.” (See Spec. ¶ [0001]).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for wireless data communications
between a network of wireless access points and a mobile
device, wherein the mobile device comprises a first radio circuit
for bi-directional wireless communication with an associated
access point and a second radio circuit for transmitting
identification signals for the purpose of revealing at least one of
mobile unit's identification and location, the method comprising
the steps of:
(1) identifying a time interval during which the first radio
circuit is inactive in wireless communication with the
associated access point; and
(2) operating the second radio circuit to transmit the
identification signals during the time interval that is identified
at step (1).
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goren (US 2005/0030160 A1) and Motegi (US
2003/0050078 A1).
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that the cited portion of
Motegi does not disclose the features that the Examiner identified to be
missing from Goren (App. Br. 4). Appellants specifically assert:
Motegi contains no disclosure relating to operating one radio
circuit of the mobile stations to transmit only when another is
inactive. Further, Motegi contains no disclosure relating to a
Appeal 2009-011446
Application 10/837,439

3
mobile station transmitting identification signals. Thus, Motegi
fails to recite “operating the second radio circuit to transmit the
identification signals during the time interval that is identified
at step (1),” as recited in claim 1, as the Examiner asserts.
Motegi thus fails to cure the conceded deficiency….

(App. Br. 4-5).
With respect to claim 7, Appellants rely on the same reasons
stated for the patentability of claim 1 and assert that the combination
of Goren and Motegi does not teach or suggest the claimed subject
matter (App. Br. 5).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
With respect to claim 1, we note that the Examiner properly relies on
Goren for disclosing transmitting location information when the first radio
circuit is inactive or in sleep mode, and on Motegi for disclosing registering
the location of the mobile device during the time interval identified as sleep
mode to meet the disputed claimed features (Ans. 12-13). As stated by the
Examiner (Ans. 12), Appellants characterize inactive mode as sleep mode in
the Specification by describing transmission of the identification signal
when the network interface card (NIC) 12 is in “sleep” mode (see Fig. 3;
Spec. ¶¶ [0030] and [0031]). Contrary to Appellants’ position (see Reply
Br. 2), this interpretation is reasonable and consistent with Appellants’
Specification and the “exemplary” operating procedure shown in Figures 3
and 4. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in treating
Appeal 2009-011446
Application 10/837,439

4
“the ‘inactive’ claim feature of Claims 1 and 7 as being ‘synonymous’ with
‘sleep mode’, as stated in the Answer” (see Reply Br. 3).
Similarly, for the same reasons stated above, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusion (Ans. 14) that the combination of Goren
and Motegi teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 7.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting claims 1 and 7 as obvious over Goren and Motegi. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 7, and of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 dependent
thereon, which are not separately argued (see App. Br. 6).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 7-9 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

tj