Ex Parte Damenti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2015

13183974 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/183,974 07/15/2011 Nicholas Damenti
26111 7590 12/28/2015
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2809.0130001 9439
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS DAMENTI and CHRISTOPHER ZYDEL
Appeal2014-000814
Application 13/183 ,97 4
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CSC Holdings, L.L.C.,
which is a subsidiary of Cablevision Systems Corporation (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 7 and 15 have been canceled.
Appeal2014-000814
Application 13/183,974
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates a telecommunications system and
method for searching for telecommunications networks (see Spec. i-f 2).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
detecting a change in condition of a communications
device in communication with a first communications network
over a network connection;
determining a time interval for scanning for a second
communications network based on the change in condition and
one of a type of the first communications network or a cost
associated with the network connection; and
scanning for the second communications network at a
periodic frequency determined by the time interval.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Zhao (US 2005/0191987 Al; Sept. 1, 2005). (See Final
Act. 2-8.)
Claims 10-14, 16, 17, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zhao and Kim (US 2006/0281436 Al; Dec. 14, 2006).
(See Final Act. 9-13.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants'
conclusion.
With respect to claim 1, we specifically agree with Appellants (App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3) that the Examiner erred in finding Zhao discloses
2
Appeal2014-000814
Application 13/183,974
"determining a time interval for scanning for a second communications
network based on the change in condition and ... a type of the first
communications network." Appellants argue the cited portions of Zhao in
paragraphs 21, 33, 37, and 39 merely disclose multiple cellular
communications devices that obtain service from the same network via one
of the base stations as the devices move from one location to another (App.
Br. 12). Appellants further contend the cited passages of Zhao do not
disclose scanning for a second communications network at a time interval
that is determined based on the type of the first communications network
(id.).
In response, the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Zhao for
specifically disclosing the disputed feature, and instead, merely stated
paragraphs 39 and 47 of Zhao disclose "multiple networks that mobile
device is capable of accessing as it moves from location to another" (Ans. 2-
3). The Examiner further reasons:
A further reading of Zhao (para. [0019], [0020], [0021], [0047];
Fig. 1) discloses that the mobile device can roam [0021] and
encounter various communication systems [0047] while
roaming and that the mobile device is capable of operating with
these different systems. Therefore, the Examiner believes that
Zhao teaches first and second communication types as required
by claim 1.
(Ans. 3). We disagree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. First,
as shown in Figure 1, Zhao discloses the mobile devices obtain service from
the same network, in contrast to the claimed first and second networks, by
connecting to different base stations in the network (see Zhao, Abstract, i-fi-1
2-22). Second, as asserted by Appellants (App. Br. 12), changing the
attempt rate in Zhao is based on the specific reason for the unsuccessful
3
Appeal2014-000814
Application 13/183,974
attempt, and not the type of the first communications network (see Zhao i-fi-1
33, 39). Therefore, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3) that the
Examiner's response is based on misinterpretation of Zhao, rather than
identifying the disputed claim features in the reference teachings.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claim 1, independent claims 18, and the claims dependent therefrom as
anticipated by Zhao. Similarly, because the Examiner has not identified any
teachings in Kim to make up for the deficiencies of Zhao, we do not sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10 and the claims dependent
therefrom over the combination of Zhao and Kim.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 8-14, and 16-22 is
reversed.
REVERSED
msc
4