Ex Parte Berlinsky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2002

08777986 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ALLAN M. BERLINSKY
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
____________
ON BRIEF1
____________
Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5 through 18. Claim 4 was canceled
in Amendment A, filed February 23, 1998 (Paper No. 7) and claim 1
was canceled in Amendment B, filed August 25, 1998 (Paper No. 9).
After the final rejection, claims 2, 3, 5 through 9 and 18 were
canceled in Amendment C filed August 11, 2000 (Paper No. 20). In
the Examiner’s Answer (page 5), the examiner indicated that
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
29, 2000 (Paper No. 25) to be in independent form. In the Appeal
Brief, appellant indicated that claims 16 and 17 had been
withdrawn from consideration. Accordingly, the status of the
claims is as follows: claims 1 through 9 and 18 have been
canceled, claims 14 and 15 have been allowed, claims 16 and 17
have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 10 through 13
remain before us on appeal.
Appellant's invention relates to a remote wireless
communicator device that provides a communication link with an
apparatus in a wireless network. Claim 10 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
10. A repeater for use in a wireless system having a mobil [sic,
mobile] switching center (MSC), and at least [sic, one] base
station communicatively connected to said MSC, said repeater
comprising
means for retransmitting signals to and from said base
station;
control functionality relating to operations of said
repeater; and
a remote communication device comprising:
a terminal unit having means for transmitting a signal
and receiving a signal, said transmitted signal
including an identification of said terminal unit;
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
means for interfacing signals of said terminal
unit with said control functionality of said
repeater.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Szabo 5,410,753 Apr. 25, 1995
Marque-Pucheu 5,509,028 Apr. 16, 1996
Claims 10 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Szabo in view of Marque-Pucheu.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23,
mailed October 25, 2000) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 21,
filed August 11, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 26, filed
December 29, 2000) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 10 through 13.
The examiner states (Answer, page 4) that it would have been
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
component, the examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that it would
have been obvious for the mobile test set to test the added
repeater as well as the base station. Appellant contends (Brief,
page 6) that "combining the mobile test set of Szabo with a
repeater station, which by its nature is stationary, would
destroy the mobility of the test set. Without mobility, the test
set is unable to test the operation of a base station at
different locations within the network." Further, appellant
questions (Brief, page 7), "How can a test set be integrated with
a stationary repeater and not loose [sic] its mobility?"
We do not find appellant's argument to be persuasive. The
examiner proposes modifying the mobile radio system to include a
repeater to expand the coverage area of the system, not to
integrate the repeater with the test set. Further, the claims
merely require "operatively connecting" the control interface and
the repeater, not directly connecting them. Thus, if, in
accordance with the examiner's combination, Szabo's mobile radio
system were modified to include a repeater, and Szabo's first
interface were set to exchange test signals between the mobile
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
though the repeater is stationary, and there would be no issue of
destroying the mobility of the test set.
Appellant further argues (Brief, page 7) that there is no
reason why the test set of Szabo needs to be integrated with the
repeater to perform tests on it. However, as explained above,
the repeater is integrated with the mobile radio system not with
the mobile test set. Additionally, the examiner suggests testing
the repeater because it has been integrated with the radio
system, not integrating the repeater with the test set to perform
tests on the repeater.
Lastly, appellant states (Brief, page 8) that he "does not
dispute the fact that a repeater expands coverage area of a
wireless network, but maintains that this fact is irrelevant
since the test set of Szabo is intended to test a network and not
to expand coverage." Again appellant appears to have missed the
examiner's point. The examiner proposed expanding coverage of
the wireless network being tested by adding a repeater, not
modifying the test set. Thus, appellant's arguments are not
persuasive, and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-1212
Application No. 08/777,986
SYNNESTVEDT & LECHNER
2600 ARAMARK TOWER
1101 MARKET STREET
PHILADELPHIA PA 19107-2950