Ex Parte Willson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 14, 2009

10176164 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ALAN N. WILLSON, Jr. and
ARTHUR TOROSYAN
________________

Appeal 2009-0001350
Application 10/176,164
Technology Center 2400
________________

Decided: October 14, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, J. Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §134(a) (2002) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 3-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b) (2008).
We affirm.

INVENTION
A mobile wireless local area communications network includes
a pair of relatively movable nodes, such as a vehicle and a
house, which are movable into and out of a defined and limited
area of communications relative to the fixed node. Each node
has a computer and human interface capabilities to enable
transfer of data between the nodes. Each has the ability to
automatically connect disconnect the nodes when the movable
node moves into/out of the area of communications. The
system causes performance of a function extrinsic to the
communication itself as a result of the initiation or the cessation
of the communication, even after the nodes have been
disconnected.

(Spec. 16, Abstract, ll. 1-10).

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
1. A mobile wireless local area communications network
comprising a pair of nodes, one of which is located in a defined
and limited geographical area of communications and the other
of which is movable into and out of said defined and limited
geographical area of communications, each node having
computer capabilities to enable transfer of data between the
nodes when in communication, means for automatically
connecting and disconnecting the nodes when the mobile node
moves into and out of said defined and limited geographical
area of communications, means for transferring data between
nodes, and means responsive to said communication for
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

3
automatically processing said data to perform a predetermined
action, extrinsic to the communication .

PRIOR ART AND EXAMINER’S REJECTION
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lee 6,246,883 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Rubinstein 5,594,707 B1 Jul. 15, 2003
(filed Sep. 15, 1999)

Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the Examiner relies on Lee in view of Rubinstein.

CLAIM GROUPINGS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief on appeal,
independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 7 as well as of claims 3, 6, and 8. Separate arguments are
presented as to dependent claims 4 and 5.

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Lee and Rubinstein teaches or suggests the feature recited at
the end of representative claim 1 on appeal of a “means responsive to said
communication for automatically processing said data to perform a
predetermined action, extrinsic to the communication?”

Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Lee’s mobile base station permits wireless communication with a
user’s terminal in a broadcast area. This includes the ability to transmit
and/or receive information to and/or from the user within this given area as
indicated in the initial lines of the summary of the invention at column 1.
This bidirectional capability is also emphasized with respect to the showing
in Figure 6, particularly Figure 6B in a wireless mode where a control
station transmits and/or receives information from one of these mobile
stations such as to permit information held by the control station to be
processed on or off-site in accordance with the discussions of this figure at
column 7.
Beginning at column 2, line 50 of Lee various applications or uses of
Lee’s mobile base station/user terminal arrangement are discussed. At the
beginning of line 10 of column 3, Lee’s mobile base station may be used as
a repeater in cellular services environment. Furthermore, as discussed at
column 3, lines 22-35:
Additionally, if sufficient and reliable mobile base station
traffic exists in an area to provide for continuous mobile
base station hand-offs, then continuous wireless services
may be provided using a series of mobil[sic] base
stations.

In yet another application, the present invention may be
used to automate tasks that require periodically gathering
or disseminating information in a particular geographic
location. For example, it may be advantageous for a
mobile base station to obtain meter readings, e.g., gas
meter readings, and other data from users along is
appointed route. This information may then be
transmitted to a user desiring the information, e.g., the
gas utility, along the mobile base station’s route.
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

5

The teachings at column 6, beginning at line 48, further embellish upon the
use of cellular hand-off technology to switch from one mobile base station
as it leaves a particular region to another mobile base station.
2. Rubinstein’s patent teaches that data packets may be automatically
configured depending on the type of external connector which includes
wireless connections as taught at column 4, lines 14 through 17, and column
9, lines 9 through 12.
Rubinstein also teaches the following at column 8, lines 10 through
20:
In one embodiment, based on the type of
connection, the present invention can choose to initiate a
function that was deferred. The type of connection
would indicate whether connection to a network has been
made, for example, so that queued e-mail can be sent and
received. In one embodiment, the present invention can
also further refine its decision based on the
characteristics of the connection; for example, if low data
transmission rate is available, the transmission of data
can be limited based on priority or on file size, with full
data transmission coming when bandwidth becomes
available.

Additional pertinent teachings in different embodiments of use are noted at
column 8 beginning at line 58 through column 9, line 8.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellants have not challenged the
combinability of Rubinstein and Lee within 35 U.S.C. §103 in the principal
Brief on appeal. Therefore, no governing case law is cited in this opinion to
that effect. The remaining determination to be made is whether the
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

6
combined teachings and/or suggestions among Lee and Rubinstein would
have rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter
that is claimed and argued before us.
From our understanding of the use of the term, “communication” in
representative independent claim 1 on appeal, such communication exists
and is established by the feature of automatically connecting and
disconnecting the nodes, a feature that is not argued by Appellants not to be
present among the combined teachings of the applied prior art. In the
context of Lee, this clearly involves the initial establishment of a link
between the user terminal and the mobile base station as well as the link
between the control station and the mobile base station in the Figure 6
embodiment.
In connection with the teaching at column 3 of Lee, which we
reproduced in Finding of Fact 1, relating to the wireless reading of utility
meters, Appellants admit at the bottom of page 10 of the principal Brief that
Lee retransmits the same data it receives. We do not agree with Appellants’
view at page 11 of the principal Brief that the combination does not teach or
suggest the feature of “automatically taking the transmitted data (i.e., the
communication) and performing a function extrinsic to that
communication.”
In accordance with this line of reasoning, Appellants’ refined views at
the middle of page 4 of the Reply Brief admit that Lee teaches a means for
transferring data between nodes as claimed. Again, Appellants take issue
with the argued and claimed feature being in the teachings of Lee only by
urging that Lee alone does not automatically process data and perform a
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

7
predetermined action extrinsic to the communication. With these views we
strongly disagree.
To the extent recited broadly in representative independent claim 1 on
appeal, the actual communication that is initially established is established
automatically by connecting the various nodes. There is no dispute before
us that Lee does not teach the establishment of a link initially between user’s
terminals and a mobile base station and, as we noted earlier, a wireless link
between this control station and a mobile base station in accordance with the
embodiment of Figure 6. The initial establishment of the link in Lee, in
accordance with the teachings we noted in Finding of Fact 1, is followed by
a separate transmission of data automatically, as an element of processing
data, to another location, thus performing a separate predetermined action
that is extrinsic to the initial communication, which is the establishment of
the initial communication link. The use of the mobile base station as a
repeater maintains continuity between stations and therefore hands-off
communications between them in accordance with the teachings we noted in
Finding of Fact 1. This action is an automatic, separate, extrinsic
transmission and processing of data. Moreover, once the data is
automatically gathered from the remote reading of gas meters, for example,
beginning in the teaching at column 3, lines 30-35, additional automatic
functionality is disseminating the information, such as to the gas utility
itself.
This functionality in Lee is buttressed by the teachings of Rubinstein
we noted in Finding of Fact 2. Again, from an artisan’s perspective, once
the initial link is established automatically configuring the transmission and
reception of information, additional deferred functionalities may exist
Appeal 2009-001350
Application 10/176,164

8
according to the teachings we noted at columns 8 and 9 from Rubinstein’s
teachings in Finding of Fact 2. The artisan would understand that these
deferred functionalities would be automatically instituted in the same
manner as the automated configuring of the initial link is taught throughout
this reference in various embodiments.

CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Lee and Rubinstein teaches the argued feature at the end
of representative independent claim 1 on appeal of a “means responsive to
said communication for automatically processing said data to perform a
predetermined action, extrinsic to the communication.” Because the Reply
Brief does not contest the Examiner’s responsive arguments directed to
dependent claims 4 and 5, the rejection of these claims is affirmed as well.
Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 is affirmed. All claims on appeal are unpatentable.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

nhl

DAVID A. GREENLEE
P.O. BOX 340557
COLUMBUS, OH 43234