Ex Parte Cromer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2013

10744474 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DARYL CARVIS CROMER, BRANDON JON ELLISON, ERIC
RICHARD KERN, and HOWARD JEFFREY LOCKER
____________________

Appeal 2010-0123101
Application 10/744,474
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MARC S. HOFF, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Lenovo Corp. (App Br. 3.)
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-5 and 17-21. Claims 6-16 have been cancelled.
(App. Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for facilitating the wireless
connection of a client device to a computer network. (Spec. 4.) In
particular, upon scanning the computer network for available wireless access
points, the client device selects the available access point with the greatest
signal strength, downloads, and displays the available resources within the
range of the selected access point. (Fig. 1, Spec. 11.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
scanning for an available wireless access point within a
computer network;
selecting a single wireless access point based on signal
strength of said wireless access point;
after a wireless connection has been established by a
guest client computer at said selected wireless access point,
downloading a structured data table from said selected wireless
access point to said guest client computer, wherein said
structured data table includes information for indicating
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

3
resources available within the range of said wireless access
point; and
displaying information from said structured data table on
said guest client computer to inform a user of said guest client
computer various resources being available through said
wireless access point.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Eran US 2004/0156399 A1 Aug. 12, 2004
Aholainen US 7,102,640 B1 Sep. 5, 2006
Geelen US 2009/0150064 A1 Jun. 11, 2009

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Aholainen and Eran.
2. Claims 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Aholainen, Eran and Geelen.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4-8, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-3.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding that the combination of Aholainen and Eran teaches or suggests
selecting based on its signal strength a single wireless access point within a
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

4
computer network, and displaying resources available through the selected
access point, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that the proposed combination does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br.
2.) In particular, Appellants argue that Eran teaches a manager selecting a
single wireless access point from a computer network, whereas in claim 1,
the selection of the access point is performed by the client computer,
although not explicitly stated. (App. Br. 5.) Further, Appellants argue that
because Aholainen discloses that each access point includes a single device,
each selected access point can only display the single resource that it
contains, whereas the claim requires that the access point display various
resources. (App. Br. 6.)
In response, the Examiner concludes that the claim does not require
the selection of the access point to be made by the client guest computer, and
consequently finds that Eran’s disclosure of a manager selecting a single
access point teaches the access point selection as broadly recited in the
claim. (Ans. 9-11.) Further, the Examiner finds that Aholainen’s disclosure
of an access point sending to a client device a requested file containing
available resources, which the client subsequently displays, teaches the
displaying step as recited in the claim. (Id. at 11-12.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection regarding claim 1. First, we agree
with the Examiner that because the claim does not recite that the access
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

5
point selection is performed by the client device, Appellants’ argument that
Eran teaches a manager, as opposed to the client computer, for performing
such selection is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention.
Given the breadth of this disputed limitation, to be met adequately, it
suffices that the access point selection be made by any party including the
manager as taught by Eran. Further, we find that Aholainen’s disclosure of
allowing a user to select from a client mobile device an access point based
upon the strength of a signal displayed on the user device (col. 5, ll. 14-20)
teaches that limitation.
Second, we note that Appellants have not presented any substantive
arguments to rebut the specific findings made by the Examiner in the
Answer with respect to the displaying limitation. In particular, the Examiner
relies upon column 12, lines 32-38, column 14, lines 15-22, and column 15,
lines 50-65 of Aholainen to show that the cited reference teaches the
displaying step recited in the claim. (Ans. 11-12.) In response, Appellants
merely discuss a general description of Aholainen as an attempt to rebut the
Examiner’s finding. (App. Br. 5-6.) Nowhere in the briefs did Appellants
attempt to address the cited specific textual portions of the Aholainen
reference upon which the Examiner relied in the rejection. That is,
Appellants’ arguments fail to compare and contrast the claim limitations
with the Examiner’s specific findings to show error therein. Merely reciting
the claim limitations, and discussing findings other than those upon which
the Examiner relied in the rejection is not a responsive argument. Such a
response to the Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

6
Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip
op. at 7-8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). See also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Further, our independent review of the Aholainen reference indicates
that it does teach or suggest the disputed limitation. In particular, we find
Aholainen’s disclosure of displaying on the client device icons representing
service records associated with a peripheral device through an access point
teaches displaying resources associated therewith. (Col. 14, ll. 14-48.) It
follows that Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claims 2, 4, and 5 not
separately argued falls therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Regarding the rejection of claim 3, Appellants argue that the
combination of Aholainen and Eran does not teach or suggest displaying as
part of a selected access point the types of peripheral devices and their
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

7
respective IP address available therewith. (App. Br. 6.) According to
Appellants, while Eran discloses IP addresses of access points, it does not
disclose IP addresses of peripheral devices associated therewith. (Id.) We do
not agree with Appellants. Aholainen discloses that a client can access
requested service records of peripheral devices including their respective
addresses, which are displayed on the screen of the client. (Col. 14, ll. 10-19,
ll. 44-48.) Further, Eran teaches that each received message contains an IP
header including a source IP address as well as a destination IP address for
allowing the manager to communicate packets between the client device,
and the peripheral devices available in selected access points. ([0081]-
[0084].) We find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
appreciated the combination of Aholainen and Eran would predictable result
in a client device displaying on its screen addresses of resources available
through respective access points to facilitate the exchange of packets
therebetween.

Regarding the rejection of claim 17, Appellants argue that the
combination of Aholainen and Eran teaches a controller within a manager,
and not a host computer, for selecting a single wireless access point based on
the signal strength thereof. (App. Br. 7.) We do not agree with Appellants.
We echo the Examiner’s finding that because the claim merely recites a
controller within a wireless LAN wireless interface, and not in a host
computer, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
the claim. (Ans. 14-15.) As discussed above, we are satisfied that Eran’s
Appeal 2010-012310
Application 10/744,474

8
manager that selects an access point based upon the signal strength thereof
teaches that limitation. Further, Appellants’ argument that Geelen does not
teach a video display of resources available through a selected access point
is not persuasive. (Id.) We agree with the Examiner that Geelen’s disclosure
of displaying information via video complements the Aholainen-Eran’s
combination to thereby enable a user to view via video selected resources
associated with a selected access point. (Id. at 15-17.) Therefore, Appellants
have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. The rejection
of claims 18-21 not separately argued falls therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-21 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