Ex Parte Aerrabotu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2014

11294792 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NAVEEN AERRABOTU
____________

Appeal 2011-010609
Application 11/294,792
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, and 21. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant mistakenly lists allowed claim 22 as at-issue on appeal.
Appellant clearly intended to list claim 21. Br. 9-11.
Appeal 2011-010609
Application 11/294,792

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method in a battery-powered multimode wireless
communication device that operates pursuant to a first
communication protocol and a second communication protocol,
the method comprising:
determining whether a battery power level has dropped to a
predetermined threshold while operating pursuant to the first
communication protocol in idle mode; and
switching from the first communication protocol so that the
device is operating in accordance with the second
communication protocol in the event that the battery power
level has dropped to the predetermined threshold while
operating pursuant to the first communication protocol in idle
mode,
the first communication protocol is a wireless local area
network protocol and the second communication protocol is a
cellular communication protocol,
switching from the first communication protocol includes
switching to the cellular communication protocol in the event
that the battery power level has dropped to the predetermined
threshold.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0223465 A1 to Akiba,
U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0147008 A1 to Kallio, and U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0037609
A1 to Zhang. Ans. 3-7.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Akiba and Kallio. Id. at 7-8.
Appeal 2011-010609
Application 11/294,792

3
CLAIMS 1, 3-5, 7, AND 8
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 are rejected as obvious over Akiba, Kallio, and
Zhang. Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Each of claims 3, 4, 7, and 8
depends from either claim 1 or 5. As explained below, an issue on appeal is
whether Kallio teaches, as recited by claims 1 and 5, switching of a device
from a wireless local area network (WLAN) protocol to a cellular
communication protocol if battery power of the device drops to a
predetermined threshold while operating in an idle mode.
In determining that Akiba, Kallio, and Zhang collectively suggest the
above feature, the Examiner finds in part:
Kallio … teaches a multimode wireless communication device
in idle mode [ ].
It would have been obvious … to use the idle mode
taught by Kallio for the purpose of providing an additional
means for minimizing power consumption as taught by Kallio.
Ans. 4 (citing Kallio ¶¶ [0008-9]); see also Ans. at 9.
Appellant argues that Kallio does not teach an idle mode of a
communication protocol, much less an idle mode of a WLAN protocol as
claimed, but rather teaches an idle mode that occurs while transitioning from
a WLAN protocol to a cellular protocol. Br. 6. Addressing Kallio’s cited
disclosures, Appellant particularly states:
At paragraph [0008], Kallio suggests the need for a GSM
mobile station (MS) that seamlessly selects in idle or active
mode to use a different high capacity radio while remaining
accessible to other types of mobile stations without user action.
At paragraph [0009], Kallio suggests the need for seamless
mobility between a GSM network and a different local radio
network in a hotspot or in an area where higher bit rates or
Appeal 2011-010609
Application 11/294,792

4
higher quality of service (QoS) is desirable. At paragraph
[0011], Kallio discloses an idle mode MS that selects a WLAN
when the MS roams from a GSM network to a WLAN and
attempts a location update via the WLAN. Kallio predicates the
switching front GSM to WLAN on the desire for higher bit rate
or higher quality of service (QoS) or the loss of GSM neighbor
cells; Kallio does not predicate switching on the “battery power
level” [ ] .
Id. (addressing claim 1); see also id. at 8 (addressing claim 5).
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. Kallio’s applied teachings indeed
pertain only to an “idle mode” and “active handover mode” for transitioning
a cellular device from a WLAN network to a cellular network. Kallio ¶¶
[0014-15]. Kallio describes the cited idle mode as preparing a cellular
device and GSM network for the active handover, stating:
During an IDLE mode when the Mobile Station (MS)
roams from said wireless LAN to said GSM network, the
Wireless Mobile Center (WMC) may be configured to inform
GSM neighbor cells, and the Mobile Station (MS) may be
configured to select a GSM radio and attempt a location update
via the GSM network, and a new location of the Mobile Station
(MS) may be updated at the Mobile Switching Center (MSC).
During an ACTIVE handover mode when the Mobile
Station (MS) initiates a handover from the wireless LAN to the
GSM network, the Mobile Station (MS) may be configured to
measure GSM neighbor cells, send measurement reports to the
Wireless Mobile Center (WMC) of the wireless LAN, where
the handover algorithm generates a handover request to the
Mobile Switching Center (MSC), via the Wireless Mobile
Center (WMC) of the wireless LAN.
Id. at ¶¶ [0014-15]. As can be seen and is argued by Appellant, Kallio’s idle
mode bears no apparent relationship to the Examiner’s rationale for the
Appeal 2011-010609
Application 11/294,792

5
proposed combination of prior art teachings; that is, to “provid[e] an
additional means for minimizing power consumption [ ]” Ans. 4.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8 is not sustained.
CLAIM 21
Claim 21 stands rejected as obvious over Akiba and Kallio. In
rejecting claim 21, the Examiner relies on the same erroneous application of
Kallio discussed above for claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 8. Ans. 8-9. Accordingly,
the obviousness rejection of claim 21 is not sustained.
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,
3-5, 7, 8, and 21 is reversed.
REVERSED

tj