Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 30, 2011

09932842 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/932,842 08/17/2001 Weijing Chen 7780/17 (T00343) 4500
7590 07/01/2011
Frank C. Nicholas
Cardinal Law Group
Suite 2000
1603 Orrington Ave.
Evanston, IL 60201
EXAMINER
PEACHES, RANDY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte WEIJING CHEN and RIAS MUHAMED
_____________

Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and, DAVID
M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system that provides wireless local area
network service to a plurality of wireless communication devices in public
through the use of a public telephone. See Spec.2.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A system for establishing a public wireless local area
network for a plurality of wireless communication devices, the
system comprising:
a public switched telephone network;
a digital subscriber line access multiplexer in communication
with the public switched network;
at least one public telephone in communication with the
public switched telephone network; and
a wireless local area network hub in communication with the
public telephone and with the digital subscriber line access
multiplexer, the wireless local area network hub being adapted
to establish a digital subscriber line connection with the
wireless communication devices.

REFERENCES
Nojima US 6,233,460 B1 May 15, 2001

Lemieux US 6,452,942 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
(filed May 20, 1999)

Souissi US 2002/0142721 A1 Oct. 3, 2002
(filed March 29, 2001)

Tuli US 6,633,314 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed Feb. 16, 2000)
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Lemieux. Ans. 4-6.
Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842

3
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Souissi. Ans. 6-13.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lemieux in view of Tuli. Ans. 13.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Souissi and Tuli. Ans. 14.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lemieux in view of Nojima. Ans. 15-16.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lemieux in view of Souissi and Nojima. Ans. 16.
ISSUES
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
Appellants argue on page 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-3 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, 2, 4, and 5 is in error.
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1, 2, 4,
and 5 since Appellants do not separately argue these claims with
particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that
Lemieux does not disclose a public telephone. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2.
1

Thus, with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, Appellants’ contention
presents the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lemieux discloses a
public telephone?

1
We note that several Reply Briefs are contained in the electronic file of this
case. However, the Reply Brief filed on 3/30/2007 by Frank C. Nicholas, an
attorney of record, is the only one noted and made of record. Therefore, we
reference this Reply Brief in our opinion.
Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842

4
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants argue on page 11 of the Appeal Brief and page 2 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16,
18, and 19 is in error. Independent claims 10 and 16 contain similar
limitations as claim 1. Claims 6-8 are dependent upon claim 1, claims 11
13, and 14 are dependent upon claim 10, and claims 18 and 19 are dependent
upon claim 16. Appellants argue that these claims are allowable for the
same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, with respect to claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19,
Appellants’ contentions present the same issue as claim 1.
Claims 3, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 20
Appellants’ arguments do not separately address the rejection of
claims 3, 12 and 17, 9, or 15 and 20. Claims 3 and 9 depend upon claim 1;
claims 12 and 15 depend upon claim 10; and claims 17 and 20 depend upon
claim 16. Accordingly, we construe Appellants’ arguments directed to
independent claims 1, 10, and 16 as also being the only arguments directed
to the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 9, 12 and 17, and 15 and 20
(respectively).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 1 requires public telephones. The
Examiner finds that Lemieux’s devices labeled D1-D3 include public
telephones since these devices are located at “a home, office, business, or
any other facility,” and would include telephones intended for private use
and telephones intended for visitors or public use. Ans. 17. Appellants
Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842

5
argue that Lemieux’s devices are not public telephones since the devices are
located “at a user’s or subscriber’s home office, business, or other facility[.]”
Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants’ Specification describes a public telephone as “a standard,
coin operated telephone such as is normally located in hotels, airports, gas
stations, restaurants, shopping centers, and other places of public
accommodation.” Spec. 3:9-11. Since a business or any other facility, as
described in Appellants’ Specification, includes hotels, gas stations,
restaurants, shopping centers, etc., as disclosed in Lemieux, these locations
are known to contain public telephones. Thus, the devices labeled D1-D3 in
Lemieux include public telephones. As a result, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4, and 5 that are grouped with claim 1.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19.
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to these claims as with
claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2. For the reasons stated supra, we are not
persuaded by these arguments.
Claims 3, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 20
As indicated above, we construe Appellants’ arguments directed to
independent claims 1, 10, and 16 as also being the only arguments directed
to the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 9, 12 and 17, and 15 and 20
(respectively). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 9,
12 and 17, and 15 and 20 for the reasons stated supra with respect to claims
1, 10, and 16.

Appeal 2009-010711
Application 09/932,842

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Lemieux discloses a public
telephone.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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

DW