2020001428 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

Jussi Ylanen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 13, 2021

2020001428 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2021)

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. 12/681,492 06/30/2010 Jussi Ilmari Ylanen 1004289.539US 4657 10928 7590 07/13/2021 Locke Lord LLP IP Docket Department P.O. BOX 55874 Boston, MA 02205 EXAMINER HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/13/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUSSI ILMARI YLANEN, VILLE VESA PERNU, and JANI PETRI OKKER ____________________ Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant1 filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (“Request” or “Req. Reh’g”) on June 23, 2021, for reconsideration of our Decision mailed on June 3, 2021 (“Dec.”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 25–46, and 52–56. Dec. 10. We reconsider our Decision in light of Appellant’s Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, NOKIA CORPORATION is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 2 In the request, Appellant contends: Appellant argues that “[t]he Tao reference does not teach managing one or more radio modules supporting wireless communication over two or more wireless communication mediums” in claim 1. See Req. Reh’g 2. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given in our prior Decision, which we incorporate herein by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2018). In particular, Appellant does not identify persuasively that the Board misapplied the relevant law or misapprehended Appellant’s arguments set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs in finding no error with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 8–10, 14–27) that claims 1, 25–46, and 52– 56 are obvious over the cited prior art. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellant contends: The Tao reference does not teach managing one or more radio modules supporting wireless communication over two or more wireless communication mediums. According to Tao’s paragraphs [0047] and [0048], for example, wireless communication of a single transceiver (WLAN) communicating over single medium is managed to adapt its transmission settings to not conflict with a prioritized data traffic of another transceiver (Bluetooth). Req. Reh’g 2 (Original emphases omitted). Tao’s Figure 5 is a flow diagram of the operation of the first transceiver 20 (WLAN), showing that transmission settings are adapted solely for the WLAN transceiver 20 in response to detecting transmissions from the second transceiver 30 (Bluetooth). Req. Reh’g 3–4. Appellant’s contentions 1 and 2 are restatements of the arguments presented in Appellant’s briefing as to alleged errors in the Examiner’s fact Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 3 finding. Appellant’s arguments were addressed in our Decision (Dec. 5, 6– 7, 8–9 (citing Tao ¶ 6, Meylan Fig. 9)) and will not be repeated here. We find Appellant’s restatement of arguments address the Examiner’s reliance on the references rather than the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Based on the Examiner’s claim construction, we agreed with findings and conclusions made by the Examiner (see Ans. 8–10, 14–27). Appellant fails to show any matter that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering this Decision. Therefore, we decline to change our prior Decision. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, Appellant’s contentions have not persuaded us to change our Decision with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Denied Granted 1, 25–46, 52–56 103(a) Tao, Meylan 1, 25–46, 52–56 Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 25–46, 52–56 103(a) Tao, Meylan 1, 25–46, 52–56 REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED