Ex Parte Beadle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 14, 2013

11380519 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EDWARD R. BEADLE, JOHN F. DISHMAN,
and WALTER DIVITO
____________________

Appeal 2010-0123071
Application 11/380,519
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Harris Corp. (App Br. 2.)
Appeal 2010-012307
Application 11/380,519

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-23. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system wherein a call blocker (10)
prevents reception of calls to a mobile device (30) within a desired small
area (12). (Fig. 2, Spec. [0009].) In particular, upon determining a
wirelessly settable parameter (e.g., frequency, power level) associated with a
mobile device (30), a selective controller (18) of the call blocker (10)
cooperates with a transceiver unit (16) to monitor characteristics of a base
station within the selected area to thereby block incoming communication to
the mobile system by wirelessly changing the settable parameter associated
with the mobile station. (Spec. [0033], [0034].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A selective call blocker for at least one mobile cellular
device in a desired zone and otherwise capable of an inbound
call or an outbound call with at least one cellular base station,
the at least one mobile cellular device having at least one
wirelessly settable parameter associated therewith enabling
establishment of an inbound call, the selective call blocker
comprising:
a receiver;
Appeal 2010-012307
Application 11/380,519

3
a transmitter; and
a selective call blocking controller cooperating with said
receiver to determine the at least one wirelessly settable
parameter associated with the at least one mobile cellular
device enabling establishment of an inbound call, and said
selective call blocking controller cooperating with said
transmitter to wirelessly change the at least one wirelessly
settable parameter to selectively block an inbound call to the at
least one mobile cellular device and without defeating the
capability of the at least one mobile cellular device to establish
an outbound call.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Fan US 2005/0239482 A1 Oct. 27, 2005
Yahagi US 2006/0003703 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Posamentier US 2006/0223451 A1 Oct. 5, 2006

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 18, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Fan.
2. Claims 2-4, 8, 10, 13, 15-17, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Fan
and Yahagi.
3. Claims 5, 6, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Fan, Yahagi, and
Posamentier.
Appeal 2010-012307
Application 11/380,519

4
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7-12, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-4.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding that Fan describes a selective call blocking controller that wirelessly
changes a wirelessly settable parameter associated with a mobile device to
thereby selectively block inbound calls thereto, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that Fan does not describe the disputed limitations
emphasized above. (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-4.) In particular, Appellants
argue that while Fan discloses a communication blocking device (24) that
sends a stronger channel signal than the channel signal emitted from a base
station to thereby block call reception to the mobile device, the
communication blocking device does not block such call reception by
changing a wirelessly settable attribute associated with the mobile device
(i.e. “it is not the settable power of the mobile device that is changed.”).
(App. Br. 8-9.) In response, the Examiner finds that because Fan discloses a
selective call blocker that emits a signal power greater than that of a base
station to thereby block a call contained in base station signal intended for
the mobile device, the blocking of that signal describes wirelessly changing
a settable parameter associated with the mobile device. (Ans. 12-14.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. We note at the outset that
Appeal 2010-012307
Application 11/380,519

5
the disputed claim limitation merely requires wirelessly changing a settable
parameter associated with the mobile device. Therefore, to meet the cited
limitation, Fan needs only disclose that the communication blocking device
wirelessly changes a parameter (power/frequency of a signal) that is related
to, but not necessarily of, the mobile device as part of its endeavor to block a
call from the base station to the mobile device. Fan discloses a
communication blocking device (CBD) that, upon receiving a signal emitted
from a base station, stores the emitted signal, measures its strength, and
simulates the base station to thereby generate another signal of equal or
greater strength. ([0014], [0015].) Upon determining that the base station
sends a signal to a mobile station entering a cell near the CBD, whereas the
mobile station is on its blocking list, the CBD causes its generated greater
strength signal to collide with the signal of the mobile station thereby
blocking a signal exchange between the mobile device and the base station.
([0023]-[0025].) We find that by generating a signal with greater power
than an emulated signal emitted from the base station, Fan describes
changing a parameter (power/strength) of the base station signal. Further,
we find that because the emitted base station signal contains a call intended
for the mobile station, the signal is related to or associated with the mobile
station. We are therefore satisfied that Fan’s disclosure adequately describes
the disputed limitations as broadly claimed. It follows that Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Because
Appellants have reiterated substantially the same arguments or have not
Appeal 2010-012307
Application 11/380,519

6
presented separate patentability arguments for claims 2-23, they fall together
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-23 as set forth above.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc