Ex Parte Bahl et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

09960258 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010)

The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PARAMVIR BAHL and ALLEN K. L. MIU
____________

Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-7, 19-26, and 38-40. Claims 45-49 are withdrawn
from consideration. Claims 8-18, 27-37, and 41-44 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

Claims 1, 19 and 38, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. (Original) A method for broadcasting an announcement signal,
comprising:
broadcasting a network identifier signal that uniquely identifies a
computer network;
broadcasting an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer network
address on the computer network, the authorizer network address
being associated with an authorizer that is configured to authorize
mobile clients to utilize the computer network; and
broadcasting a verifier signal that identifies a verifier network address
on the computer network, the verifier network address being
associated with a verifier that is configured to verify data packets sent
by mobile clients utilizing the computer network.

19. (Original) One or more computer-readable media containing
computer-executable instructions that, when executed on a computer,
perform the following steps:
transmitting a network identifier signal that identifies an associated
network;
transmitting an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer on the
network, the authorizer being configured to authorize client access to
the network; and
transmitting a verifier signal that identifies a verifier, the verifier
Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

3
being configured to verify that data packets transmitted to the network
are transmitted from clients that have been authorized to access the
network.

38. (Original) A system, comprising:
a network identifier;
an authorizer identifier;
a verifier identifier;
a signal generator configured to generate a signal that
communicates the network identifier, the authorizer identifier and the
verifier identifier.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hulthren US 6,073,016 Jun. 6, 2000
Chang US 6,487,406 B1 Nov. 26, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 19-23, 26, and 38-40 under 35
U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Chang.
The Examiner rejected claims 6-7 and 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chang and Hulthren.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 requires:
broadcasting a network identifier signal that uniquely identifies a
computer network;
Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

4
broadcasting an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer
network address on the computer network, the authorizer network address
being associated with an authorizer that is configured to authorize mobile
clients to utilize the computer network.
The Examiner found that:
Chang et al teach the network requires users to be
registered (see at least column 6, line 30-40,
column 3, line 7-10). If it is detected that the user
has moved to a different base station (BS), a
determination is made on whether the BS belongs
to a different PCS registration area and whether a
PCS registration is required before
communications through the new BS is permitted
(see at least column 6, line 20-40, also column 5,
line 60- column 6, line 40). Therefore, it is clear
that the user needs to be a registered user before
being allowed to communicate on the new BS, or
in other words, needs to be an "authorized" user.
(Answer 8).
Appellants however maintain that “[w]hile authorizing involves a
decision as to whether or not to grant authority or power to something,
registering merely entails entering something in an official register.” (Reply
Br. 4).
We turn to the Specification for guidance. The Specification states
authorization to access the network is demonstrated by possessing an
authorization key 318. (Specification 17:18-19). The process which the
Examiner refers supra does not require identifying an authorizer network
Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

5
address on the computer network when access to a network is established
because the system Chang has already been accessed when determining
whether the BS belongs to a different PCS registration area occurs.
Claim 1 however requires authority to enter the network via an
authorizer network address on the computer network the authorizer network
address being associated with an authorizer (key 318) that is configured to
authorize mobile clients to utilize the computer network. The Examiner’s
finding that this feature is found in Chang when “system information
broadcast contains BS identification which provide wireless communication
to mobile stations, also see column 1, lines 34-37)” (Answer 4), does not
account for an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer network address
on the computer network which is associated with the authorizer. Thus, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because “[a]
claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is
not found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F. 2d 628,
631, (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).
Since claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, and since we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 1, the rejection of these claims likewise cannot be
sustained.
Claim 19 is broader in scope than claim 1 in that it does not require
“an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer network address on the
computer network, the authorizer network address being associated with an
Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

6
authorizer that is configured to authorize mobile clients to utilize the
computer network”. Rather, claim 19 only requires that the “authorizer
signal identify an authorizer on the network, the authorizer being configured
to authorize client access to the network….” Since Appellants’ arguments to
claim 19 rely on those to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 18), which arguments are tied
solely to the authorizer network address on the computer network feature,
and since claim 19 is broader in scope than claim 11, we therefore find
Appellants’ argument to claim 19 unpersuasive.
We also affirm the rejection of dependent claims 20-26 since
Appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claim 38 likewise is broader in scope than claim 1 in that it does not
require an authorizer signal that identifies an authorizer network address on
the computer network, the authorizer network address being associated with
an authorizer which feature we found supra distinguishes over the prior art.
Rather, claim 38 only requires an authorizer identifier which the Examiner
found in Chang is part of the “system information broadcast which contains
BS identification which provide wireless communication to mobile stations”.

1 Appellants’ argument that “the Examiner provided no additional evidence
to reject Claim 19” (Appeal Br. 18) is not persuasive because claim 19 is
broader in scope than claim 1.

Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

7
(Answer 5). Appellants do not challenge this specific finding. We therefore
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments to claim 38.
We also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 39-40 since
Appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity (see In
re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Chang.
We conclude the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 19-23, 26, and 38-40 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by Chang.
We conclude the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Chang in view of Hulthren.
We conclude the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chang in view of Hulthren.
Appeal 2010-001909
Application 09/960,258

8
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7 is REVERSED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19-26, 38-40 is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

MP

LEE & HAYES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE WA 99201