Ex Parte 6625454 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 17, 2011

90009093 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 17, 2011)

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.
90/009,093 03/28/2008 6625454 022.0304R 2606
66651 7590 06/17/2011
INGRASSIA FISHER & LORENZ, P.C. (MOT)
7010 E. Cochise Road
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
EXAMINER
LEE, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WIRELESS VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
____________

Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1
1

Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, KARL D. EASTHOM, and KEVIN TURNER
Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Patent to Rappaport et al., Method and System for Designing or Deploying
a Communications Network which Considers Frequency Dependent Effects
(issued Sept. 23, 20003).
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a third party request for ex parte
reexamination of the „454 patent. Appellant and real party in interest,
Wireless Valley Communications, Inc., seeks review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(b) and contests the final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-61. The
Examiner confirmed claims 4 and 12. (See App. Br. 2, 4.)
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The „454 patent describes a computer model which displays
a physical environment in which a communications network is
or will be installed. The communications network is comprised
of several components, each of which are selected by the design
engineer and which are represented in the display. . . . The
effects of changes in frequency on component performance are
modeled and the results are displayed to the design engineer.
(Abstract.)
Exemplary Claims on Appeal
Exemplary claims 1 and 2 follow:
1 (Original). A method for designing or deploying a communications
network, comprising the steps of:
providing a computerized model which represents a physical
environment in which a communications network is or will be installed, said
computerized model providing a display of at least a portion of said physical
environment;
providing performance attributes for a plurality of system components
which may be used in said physical environment, a number of said system
components having associated with them frequency dependent
characteristics;
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

3
selecting specific components from said plurality of system
components for use in said computerized model;
representing said selected specific components in said display;
running prediction models using the computerized model and said
performance attributes to predict performance characteristics of a
communications network comprised of said selected specific components,
said prediction models utilizing said frequency dependent characteristics in
calculations which predict said performance characteristics of said
communications network.
2 (Original). The method of claim 1 wherein said frequency
dependent characteristics define electrical properties of said system
components at least two different frequencies.
The Rejections and Objections
The Examiner objected to claims 19, 27, 42, and 57 for certain
informalities. (Fin. Rej. 4; Ans. 4-5.) Such objections are not appealable
and are not before the Board.
The Examiner also finally rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. (Fin. Rej. 4; Ans. 5.) Appellant does
not address this rejection in the opening Brief, thereby waiving the issue.
Consequently, we sustain this rejection pro forma.
The Examiner also finally rejected the claims as follows:
Claims 1-3, 5, l0, 11, 13 and 15-61 under 35 U.S.C. §
l02(b) as anticipated by the SitePlanner 3.0 User‟s Manual (1998);
Claims 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as obvious over SitePlanner and
U.S. Patent No. 6,496,290 to Lee; and
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

4
Claims 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as being unpatentable over
SitePlanner and U.S. Patent No. 5,831,610 to Tonelli.
(Fin. Rej. 5, 27.)
ISSUES
Appellant disputes the Examiner‟s findings with respect to two
clauses in claim 1 (see App. Br. 1), raising the following issue:
Does SitePlanner disclose “providing performance attributes for a
plurality of system components which may be used in said physical
environment, a number of said system components having associated with
them frequency dependent characteristics” and “running prediction models
using . . . said performance attributes to predict performance characteristics
of a communications network comprised of said selected specific
components, said prediction models utilizing said frequency dependent
characteristics in calculations which predict said performance characteristics
of said communications network,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellant also presents arguments against the rejection, based on
SitePlanner, of other claims, raising related additional issues as discussed
below.

Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Figure 5.18 from SitePlanner appears below:

(SitePlanner 102.) Figure 5.18 shows a dialog box for selecting components
from a Bill of Materials to add to an antenna system. It also shows that each
coaxial cable (e.g., the HJ5-50 and HJ7-50A coaxial cable) is listed several
times at more than one frequency with a corresponding attenuation (dB per
100m) value for that frequency.
2. Other related dialog boxes (see e.g., Figures 5.9 and 5.10) allow
users to find a desired component based on the manufacturer, add
components, or edit existing entries. The entries in Figure 5.9 imply that
users can select a different attenuation value for each cable in the Bill of
Materials whereby each such value is associated with a particular frequency
range. (See id. at 91-92; Fig. 5.9 (showing a selectable attenuation box and
frequency range box).)
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

6
3. “Currently, the allowable component types are Amplifiers,
Antennas, Cables, Connectors/Splitters, Leaky Feeder Antennas, and a
generic Other Devices type.” (Id.)
4. “It should be noted that multiple instances of the same part number
for the same manufacture is allowed. This means you are free to create
separate instances of the same component in cases where one or more of the
data fields (e.g., the attenuation if an adjustable amplifier) can vary.” (Id. at
92.)
5. After editing, the components can be saved as part of the Bill of
Materials and/or thereafter removed. (Id. at 92-93.) For example,
Figure 5.11 (id. at 93) lists for possible removal from the Bill of Materials,
several different radiating cables, and similar to Figures 5.10 and 5.18 (id.
at 92, 102), lists different frequencies (e.g., 900 MHz; 1700 MHz;
2400MHz) for each cable.
6. SitePlanner further describes the Bill of Materials as follows:
Predictor maintains a full bill of materials for every
drawing in a workspace. That is, each drawing may contain its
own unique set of antennas and related components. These
components are drawn from the global bill of materials, which
resides under the Bom [Bill of Materials] directory of the
global workspace. The ability to maintain a unique equipment
list for each drawing enables you to carry out unique designs in
which you can compare and contrast the performance of
different vendor components and see the impact that using one
component over another can have on your overall system.
Information that can be tracked with the bill of materials
includes the manufacturer and part number, cost, RF loss
characteristics, connections, and the frequencies for which the
component is valid. In addition, a rich set of customization
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

7
features is provided to enable you to tailor the bill of materials
to suit your needs.
(Id. at 89 §5.3.)
7. In other words, users can create and retrieve different drawings for
use in a workspace for comparison purposes (and also create new
workspaces and save old workspaces). (Id. at 52, 53, 89.) A workspace is
the collection of all the files, drawings, bill of materials, channel sets, etc.,
for a particular job. (Id. at 16.) As an example, a user can assign a selected
channel or channel set to a base station “already configured for the correct
frequencies” to multiple drawings within a workspace. (Id. at 81.)
LEGAL AUTHORITY
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal, Appellant‟s
“brief must set forth the authorities and arguments relied on, and the extent
that it fails to do so with respect to any ground of rejection, that ground may
be summarily sustained.” MPEP § 2274, VI.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
Appellant, relying on a declaration by expert Dr. Skidmore, a co-
inventor of the „454 patent and the primary author of SitePlanner and other
related manuals, argues that the different components in SitePlanner are
frequency independent, as opposed to frequency dependent. (App. Br. 20-22
(citing Skidmore Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7, 9, 11, 13-15, 18).) For example, Appellant
explains that Figure 5.18 of SitePlanner (see supra FF) shows “nine separate
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

8
static values for nine separate cable components, each at a different
frequency.” (App. Br. 22; accord Reply Br. 4.)
Appellant also maintains that while SitePlanner‟s “„Bill of Materials‟”
describes “„antennas and related components‟” as having “„RF loss
characteristics‟” and “„the frequencies for which the component is valid‟”
(FF6), “the modeled components of the SitePlanner . . . computer model did
not respond, vary or otherwise depend upon the frequency applied to the
component at all.” (App. Br. 20 (quoting SitePlanner at 89, §5.3).)
Appellant‟s position is not persuasive. Figure 5.18 shows that a single
component, for example, the “HJ5-50 series Heliax coaxial cable,” has nine
different loss values which depend on frequency. (FF1.) Appellant‟s
characterization of the nine values as corresponding to nine different
components because the figure refers to selecting a component (Reply
Br. 4-5 n. 3) lacks merit for the reasons that follow.
Appellant does not dispute that a real-world physical coaxial cable,
such as the HJ5-50 Heliax coaxial cable, or one of the antennae or other
components modeled by the SitePlanner system, each constitute a single
component which has output values which vary with frequency. (See FF1,
FF1- FF6.) For example, Appellant states that the list represents “the same
real-world AHJ5-50 cable at nine different frequencies.” (Reply Br. 5.) In
addition, contrary to Appellant‟s related arguments (Reply Br. 9-10),
SitePlanner‟s statement that “you are free to create separate instances of the
same component” (FF4), verifies that the list in Figure 5-18 represents
different frequency instances versus attenuation of the same real-world
component and its corresponding model. (Accord Ans. 50.) While
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

9
Appellant states that this “separate instances” statement is “ten pages away
from FIG 5.18” (Reply Br. 9-10), Appellant does not argue that the
statement does not relate to Figure 5.18. In any event, the statement and
Figure 5.18 (FF1) relate to choosing components for SitePlanner‟s modeling
system “where one or more of the data fields . . . can vary” (FF4). Hence,
Figure 5.18 shows a dialog box (FF1), and with aid of other system dialog
boxes, a user can select or create different component instances (i.e.,
different frequency versus attenuation values) for the same modeled real-
world component (see FF1- FF7).
In a related argument, Appellant states that “the Examiner is
confusing actual parts of a real-world network with the components of the
computerized model.” (Reply Br. 10.) This argument does not provide a
clear distinction over claim 1. Claim 1 recites “providing performance
attributes for a plurality of system components which may be used in the
physical environment, a number of said system components having
associated with them frequency dependent characteristics” (emphasis
supplied). Hence, under one reasonable claim interpretation, the claim 1
“system components” at least can be (and arguably must be) real-world
components because such components may be used in a physical
environment.
The claim 1 step of “selecting specific components from said plurality
of system components for use in said computerized model” does not change
the previously introduced system components into modeled components. In
other words, as just discussed, the “providing” step in claim 1 indicates that
each system component is a real-world component (which the recited system
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

10
models). The “selecting” step refers back to “said system components”
introduced in the “providing” step, thereby implying that such “specific
components from the . . . system components” must or can also be real-
world; i.e., the “specific components,” being “for use” as real-world subjects
to be modeled. The next-to-last “representing” step merely provides for
“representing” real-world components, while the final “running” step in
claim 1 further implies that the selected specific components are part of a
real-world “communications network.” Moreover, claim 3, which depends
from claim 1, bolsters this claim interpretation and verifies that “said
selected specific components” are real-world components which are
available for purchase because the method recited in claim 3 generates a
“bill of materials containing cost information.” Similarly, claim 4 provides a
“maintenance schedule for selected specific components” – also implying
real-world components which require maintenance.
Similarly, SitePlanner describes real-world components which depend
on frequency, and models these components, as Appellant acknowledges as
noted above. (See also App. Br. 26 (“While the behavior of actual network
components is clearly affected by the operation frequency . . . .”).) And
even pursuant to a narrower claim interpretation under which a system
component in claim 1 requires a component model which must be frequency
dependent, as opposed to merely a real-world component as discussed supra
under a broader claim interpretation, each component model in SitePlanner
(of a real-world component) does depend on frequency. That is, SitePlanner
models each real-world component by providing a list of paired frequency
and attenuation loss (or some other characteristic) values for each
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

11
component model (FF1, see also FF2- FF4) to thereby allow a user to
“compare and contrast” such components in terms of, inter alia, “RF loss
characteristics” (FF6). (See also FF7.)
While Appellant argues that “[t]he only way to model operation at a
different frequency [in SitePlanner] was to build a new model using entirely
different modeled components” (App. Br. 21), this argument incorrectly 1)
implies that claim 1 requires a model of a system operating at more than one
frequency, and 2) even if claim 1 does require such a model, the argument
improperly characterizes “a new model” and “components.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that claim 1 does require a model
of a communications system operating at more than one frequency, as
discussed above, SitePlanner models each real-word component as a single
component which has a characteristic which varies with frequency by listing
the same component at several frequency instances. (FF1-FF4, see e.g. Fig.
5.18.) Contrary to Appellant‟s arguments, SitePlanner‟s list of discrete
entries does not mean that SitePlanner employs a different computer system
model or a different component in that model by merely allowing a user to
choose a different frequency instance from the list for each component.
In general, as indicated supra, SitePlanner allows a user to “compare
and contrast the performance of different vendor components and see the
impact that using one component over another can have on your overall
system. Information that can be tracked . . . includes . . . RF loss
characteristics . . . and the frequencies for which the component is valid.”
(FF6.) In particular, SitePlanner allows the user to compare two different
drawings (in one workspace) which have the same modeled components,
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

12
albeit at different frequencies (i.e., with each same component in the
separate drawings modeled at a different frequency with its corresponding
attenuation and/or frequency channel transmitter value). (FF1, FF6, FF7.)
Under this scenario (again, assuming arguendo that claim 1 implicitly
requires a comparison at two frequencies), the recited computerized model
reads on two of SitePlanner‟s drawings which reside in a single workspace.
(See FF7.) Under an alternative SitePlanner scenario upon which claim 1
reads, a user can employ the same drawing and simply swap frequency
versus attenuation values from a list for each component to correspond to a
new operating frequency.
2
(See FF1, FF6, FF7.)
Since claim 1 recites “running prediction models [i.e., plural models]
using the computerized model” (emphasis added), it does not preclude
running the same computerized model (i.e., using a different drawing and/or
frequency component instance) successively at separate frequencies as
occurs in SitePlanner. The „454 patent supports these claim interpretations
under which claim 1 reads on SitePlanner‟s manual dual-drawing or dual-
value comparison system because the „454 patent states that “„components
can be considered on a frequency dependent basis either automatically or

2
Claim 1 specifies that the computerized model “represents a physical
environment in which a communications network is or will be installed,”
further bolstering the claim interpretation under which the recited
computerized model does not become another model just because a modeled
component‟s input frequency and corresponding frequency dependent
characteristic changes. Alternatively, under the broader claim interpretation
discussed above, since the computerized model selects real-world
components for use (i.e., for modeling) in the model, it follows that as long
as the selected real-world components do not change, the recited model does
not either.
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

13
through the use of a prompt.‟” (See App. Br. 18 (quoting „454 patent at col.
3, l. 56 to col. 4, l.1) (emphasis added); Ans. 39 (reasoning that claim 1 does
not require automatic frequency comparisons).) In other words, selecting a
second drawing or second frequency instance after a particular run at a first
drawing or frequency instance, as SitePlanner allows (FF6, FF7), is akin to
responding to a prompt as occurs in the „454 patent.
Since SitePlanner‟s real-world components and models thereof have
loss and other values which depend upon frequency and SitePlanner
provides outputs based on such values, it also follows that SitePlanner‟s
prediction models also utilize “said frequency dependent characteristics in
calculations which predict said performance characteristics of said
communications network” as set forth in claim 1. (See FF1-FF7, Ans. 7
(citing SitePlanner 3, 11, 42, 43, 79, 108; § 5.7 Powerful Prediction Modes);
Ans. 40.)
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Examiner‟s rejection of
claim 1 is sustained, as is the rejection of claims 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 24, and 41
because Appellant does not present separate arguments for these claims (see
App. Br. 25, 30.)
With respect to claim 2, as the Examiner generally found,
SitePlanner‟s Bill of Materials §5.3 describes at least two different
frequencies versus electrical performance for each component. (Ans. 7;
FF1, FF2.) Also, SitePlanner‟s Figure 5.18, related to this Bill of Materials,
shows two different values versus two frequencies each for the HJ5-50 cable
and for the HJ7-50A cable. (See Ans. 39; FF1.) Similarly, Figure 5.11 also
shows multiple cables at different frequencies in the same Bill of Materials.
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

14
(FF5.) While claim 2, like claim 1, does not require a comparison at the two
frequencies, even if it does, SitePlanner provides for modeling different
cables and/or components at the same frequency for use in different portions
of the physical system, and then, models the same cables and/or components
at a different frequency, albeit in successive computer runs, all to allow for
comparisons of RF loss, as discussed supra. (Accord FF1-FF7.)
Appellant‟s arguments with respect to similar claims 16, 33, and 49 track
those with respect to claim 2. (See App. Br. 27 and 31.) As such, the
rejection of claims 2, 16, 33, and 49 is sustained.
With respect to claims 15 and 32, Appellant‟s arguments largely
parallel those with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 26-27.) Contrary to
Appellant‟s arguments, the nine different loss values for a single model
component or physical component (FF 1) show that the properties of the
system components vary with an operating frequency at which said system
components operate either in the real-world and/or in the computer model.
Accordingly, based on the arguments presented, Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that SitePlanner anticipates
claims 15 and 32.
Claims 17, 25, 34, 42, and 55 require frequency dependent
characteristics of system components that vary based on a frequency band
over which the components operate. Appellant essentially relies on
arguments presented for claim 1: “While we have acknowledged that real-
world components operate differently at different frequencies, the modeled
components of the SitePlanner model contained only static frequency
independent values. . . . [and therefore,] SitePlanner . . . did not have
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

15
characteristics that varied based upon a gross frequency band . . . .” (App.
Br. 28.) The argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with
respect to claim 1.
Also, since real-world components modeled by SitePlanner have
characteristics that depend on frequency as Appellant acknowledges, it
follows that these same components also inherently have characteristics
which vary within a gross frequency band. (App. Br. 27-28; Ans. 45 (citing
an equation implying inherency in loss versus frequency).) And as the
Examiner generally found (see Ans. 45-46), a gross frequency band, which
the claims do not define, reasonably can be defined as one that simply
encompasses two of SitePlanner‟s different frequencies associated with the
frequency versus attenuation pairs for a modeled or real-world component.
(See FF1, Fig. 5-18.) Accordingly, based on the arguments presented and
the scope of the claims, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner
erred in finding that SitePlanner anticipates claims 17, 25, 34, 42, and 55.
Notwithstanding Appellant‟s similar arguments with respect to claims
20, 22, 30, 39, and 47 of similar scope to those in the preceding paragraph
(see App. Br, 29-30), these claims recite limitations which merely specify
the implicit fact that real-world components operate at different pluralities of
gross frequency bands. Similar remarks apply to claims 23, 31, 40, and 48
which merely further specify that the gross bands correspond to known
(i.e., standard) wireless bands in which real-world components can operate.
Also, SitePlanner discloses that even a model for certain components is valid
only within a frequency band. (See FF2, Figure 5-9; FF6.) Based on the
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

16
foregoing discussion, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the rejection
of claims 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30-32, 34, 39, 40, 42, 47, 48, and 55.
Claim 19 depends from claim 15 and recites “displaying in real-time .
. . changes in coverage of said communications network.” With respect to
claims 19 and 21, Appellant refers to the language recited therein and asserts
that the claims are allowable “for all the reasons stated above.” (App. Br.
29.) This argument is interpreted as relying on arguments asserted for the
independent claims and fails to show how the Examiner erred. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is the applicants‟ burden
to precisely define the invention, not the PTO‟s.”); see also In re Baxter
Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function
of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
appellant . . . .”).
Further, the „454 patent describes “information . . . updated in real-
time as the designer makes changes to the wireless system” (col. 25, ll. 35-
36) and implies that these updates can be made based on “the addition,
removal, or change of any component” (id. at l. 32). The Examiner‟s finding
relies on SitePlanner Figure 5-14 (Ans. 11-12), which displays the antenna
pattern of a selected antenna. The pages cited by the Examiner also disclose
manipulating, removing and replacing antennae and other components,
including coaxial cables, pursuant to modeling a system. (See Ans. 11-12
(citing SitePlanner at 97-99 and Fig. 5-14); accord FF3, FF5, FF6, FF7.)
In light of the „454 patent and arguments presented, claims 19 and 21
are broad enough to allow for modeling and displaying different antennae
and other components at different times, for example, which would show
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

17
different patterns in “real-time,” since “real-time,” according to the „454
patent and the claim phrases at issue here, allow a user to add or change
components. Based on the foregoing discussion, Appellant has not showed
error in the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 19 and 21.
With respect to claims 18, 26, 35, 43, 50, and 56, Appellant argues
that the Examiner‟s finding that SitePlanner‟s “inconvenient” operation of
entering values manually does not satisfy the claim limitations of
“displaying in real time changes in the performance characteristics of the
communications network on the display in response to a change in the
operating frequency for the selected specific components,” as set forth in
these claims. (App. Br. 28-29.) The Examiner‟s finding that manually
entering new component values corresponds to a display of real-time
changes in response to a change in the operating frequency, without a further
explanation, does not appear reasonable in light of the claim phrase and the
„454 patent.
For example, the „454 patent describes how a Parts List Library
contains frequency dependent information values and other values for
components and later describes preferably applying values “automatically in
real time . . . according to the active frequency of the signal arriving at
and/or leaving a component.” („454 patent, col. 26, ll. 33-53; see also App.
Br. 8-9 (citing similar support in the „454 patent for the real-time
limitation).) Claims 27-29, 36-38, 44-46, 51-54, and 57-61 ultimately and
respectively depend from claims 26, 35, 43, 50, and 56. Based on the
foregoing discussion, the rejection of claims 18, 26-29, 35-38, 43-46, 50-54,
and 56-61 is not sustained.
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

18
Obviousness
With respect to claims 6-9 and 14 which depend from claims 1 and 10
and which were rejected based on a combination of SitePlanner and one of
either Lee or Tonelli, Appellant relies solely on the above-discussed alleged
deficiencies of SitePlanner and the rejection of claims 1 and 10. (App. Br.
32.) Based on the foregoing discussion of SitePlanner and claims 1 and 10,
the rejections of claims 6-9 and 14 are sustained also.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19-25, 30-
34, 39-42, 47-49, and 55 is affirmed. The Examiner‟s decision to reject
claims 18, 26-29, 35-38, 43-46, 50-54, and 56-61 is reversed.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
Appeal 2011-006643
Reexamination Control No. 90/009,093
Patent 6,625,454 B1

19
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ak

Ingrassia Fisher & Lorenz, PC
7010 E. Cochise Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Third Party Requester:

Cesari and McKenna, LLP
88 Black Falcon Avenue
Boston, MA 02210