Ex Parte Ansorge

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 2, 2012

10498260 (B.P.A.I. May. 2, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTIAN ANSORGE
____________________

Appeal 2009-012416
Application 10/498,260
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2009-012416
Application 10/498,260

2
This is a decision on Appellant’s Request for Rehearing.
In its Decision, the Board explicitly adopted as its own “(1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.” (Decision 4).

Points of Clarification
At pages 3-6 of the Request, Appellant presents new arguments which
Appellant labels as “Points of Clarification.” Appellant does not contend,
nor do we find, that these new arguments comply with the requirements of
37 C.F.R. §41.52(a)(1). 1 Such new arguments are not permitted and they
will not be considered in reaching our decision on this Request. 2

1 Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the
date of the original decision of the Board. No request for rehearing from a
decision on rehearing will be permitted, unless the rehearing decision so
modified the original decision as to become, in effect, a new decision, and
the Board states that a second request for rehearing would be permitted. The
request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have
been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Arguments not raised in
the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the
brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing
except as permitted by paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section.

2 However, we do note that these new arguments are mistaken. The
Examiner is correct that the SID 51 identifies a geographic area. (Ans. 4).
The fact asserted by Appellant that “in the same geographic area different
service providers have different SIDs” (Request 3) means only that there are
plural SID geographic identifiers each identifying the same single
geographic area. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion that “SID 51, does not, in
fact, designate a geographic area but instead designates a service provider,”
SID 51 designates both a geographic area and a service provider.

Appeal 2009-012416
Application 10/498,260

3

Assignments of Error
At pages 6-13 of the Request, Appellant presents ten (10) so called
“Assignments of Error.”
Appellant argues that (1) “Bamburak’s “Open-Ended Figure 10 does
not Show "Only" Anything” and (2) “Bamburak Does not Say "C", "b", "D",
and "a" can co-exist,”. (Req. 6-7). We disagree. It is clear from the
disclosure of Bamburak that frequencies are broken into bands that can
co-exist in the same geographic area. (See column 1, line 47, to column 2,
line 12). Although Bamburak’s Figure 10 uses ellipses, Appellant’s
contention that this leads to frequency bands that cannot co-exist goes
against the explicit teachings of Bamburak.
Appellant argues that (3) “Bamburak Does not Say "Only in the Case
That".” (Req. 7-8). We disagree. The Examiner reads Bamburak’s tuning to
“frequency band C” as a continuation of the process of tuning to the “last
used frequency band.” (See Answer 4). We agree as the tuning to frequency
band C always occurs as a follow on to tuning to the last used frequency
band. Then, “if for some reason the device is unsuccessful in registering
with a service provider on frequency band C” the device will tune to “the
next highest priority frequency band.” We agree with the Examiner that
Bamburak tunes to the next highest priority frequency band only in the case
that frequency C is unsuccessful. (See Answer 4:last three lines).
Appellant argues that (4) “Bamburak’s Single Frequency Band
Cannot Anticipate "Group of Frequency Bands".” (Req. 9). We disagree.
The terminology “group of frequency bands” is inclusive of a single
“frequency band.” Separately, we note that Appellant himself switches
Appeal 2009-012416
Application 10/498,260

4
between the terms within the Specification. See page 2, lines 27-32,
(emphases added):
This object is achieved by a controlling method
comprising the steps of searching for a communications
network by scanning that frequency band or operation mode
first that was used during the last successful operation, and
continuing the search through all possible frequency bands or
modes only in case that no accessible network was found in the
group of frequency bands searched first.
As for Appellant’s remaining “Assignments of Error,” we find them
equally unpersuasive.

DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellant’s Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellant’s request with respect to making any change thereto.

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)(v).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

msc