Ex Parte Doaga et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2010

10767407 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2010)

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.
10/767,407 01/29/2004 Alexandru C. Doaga 6234/79714 2870
22242 7590 07/30/2010
FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO, IL 60603-3406
EXAMINER
MOSSER, ROBERT E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2010 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 ALEXANDRU C. DOAGA and ROBERT C. SILZER, SR.
____________________

Appeal 2009-003258
Application 10/767,407
Technology Center 3700
____________

____________

Before: LINDA E. HORNER, WILLIAM F. PATE III, and
FRED A. SILVERBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-003258
Application 10/767,407

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-22. These are
the only claims in the application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6. We reverse.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a golf course having a
plurality of wireless access points that can serve as a communication
infrastructure for the golf course and can serve additional subscribers as, for
example, their broadband supplier. A method is also claimed.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A communications system comprising:
- a local area network that comprises a plurality of
wireless access points disposed about a golf course;
- a wireless communications protocol operably supported
by the plurality of wireless access points, wherein the wireless
communications protocol supports:
- automatically updating golf course infrastructure
information; and
- subscriber communications.

REFERENCES
The prior art cited by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Dudley 5,772,534 Jun. 30, 1998
Sirén 6,763,236 B2 Jul. 13, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, and 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 103(a)
as unpatentable over Dudley.
Appeal 2009-003258
Application 10/767,407

3
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Dudley.
Claims 5 and 10-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dudley and Sirén.

OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner. As a result of this review,
we have determined that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on the
grounds of anticipation and obviousness. Therefore, the rejections of these
claims are reversed. Our reasons follow.
Notwithstanding the findings on page 4 of the Answer, in our view,
Dudley fails to show a local area network comprising a plurality of wireless
access points, or subscriber communications. Therefore, it is our finding
that claims 1-4 and 7-9 do not lack novelty over Dudley.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 as unpatentable
over Dudley, we are in agreement with Appellants that Dudley fails to
render obvious a plurality of wireless access points. We also agree with
Appellants that, as disclosed, Dudley shows only one transmitter 32 and
receiver 30 at the clubhouse 26 that could broadly be construed as a wireless
access point. Reply Br. 1-3. We agree with Appellants’ argument that the
transmitters and receivers on the various golf carts of Dudley are endpoints
on the “network” and cannot be construed as wireless access points. App.
Br. 9. We acknowledge the Examiner’s argument that multiple transmitters
or repeaters could be used if the environment, such as the terrain, dictated.
Answer 4:17-5:2. There is no evidence that this extension of Dudley is
Appeal 2009-003258
Application 10/767,407

4
contemplated in the reference, and we agree with the Appellants that this is
speculation on the part of the Examiner.
We are further in agreement with Appellants that Dudley does not
disclose even part of the wireless communication resources to support
subscriber communications. App. Br. 7. We further agree with Appellants
that the emergency communications provided on each golf cart are merely
communications dealing with the infrastructure and support of the golf
course. App. Br. 11. We note that Appellants defined “subscriber
communications” as communication that pertains completely to the interest
and needs of the subscribers with little regard to operation of the golf course.
See Spec. para. [0025]. Therefore, it is our conclusion that Dudley does not
teach or render obvious wireless access points supporting subscriber
communications as claimed.
We have carefully considered the Sirén disclosure. We acknowledge
that it is directed to the division of bandwidth between various subscribers.
However, we find nothing disclosed therein that would teach the
applicability of the disclosure to a communication system which requires a
division of the resources; some supporting an infrastructure and some
supporting regular subscriber communications. The disclosure of Sirén is
directed entirely to communications from a subscriber base. In our view,
were one of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Sirén and Dudley, one
of ordinary skill would provide one communication system supporting the
infrastructure of the golf course and another separate system for use by the
subscribers. Nothing in the references would have taught or suggested
division of a single communication resource between the infrastructure and a
subscriber base.
Appeal 2009-003258
Application 10/767,407

5
For the foregoing reasons, it is our determination that Appellants have
established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-22. The rejections
of all of the claims on appeal are reversed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

REVERSED

nlk

FITCH, EVEN, TABIN & FLANNERY
120 SOUTH LASALLE STREET
SUITE 1600
CHICAGO IL 60603-3406