Ex Parte Ganesan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2003

08583357 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2003)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KALYAN GANESAN and ENRIQUE LABORDE
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, 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 1, 3 through 17, 19, and 20, which are all of
the claims pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to a personal access
communications system for implementing full two way voice and
data service in a voice service area and two way messaging in
areas outside the voice service area. Claims 13 and 16 are
illustrative of the claimed invention, and they read as follows:
13. A wide area wireless personal communication system
incorporating advanced messaging capability comprising:
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
2
at least one short range transceiver having an operating
range defining a voice service area for providing voice and data
communication to a user having a personal transceiver unit, the
at least one short range transceiver operating on a first
communication channel;
a two way messaging service area for providing advanced
messaging services to users via a plurality of long range pagers,
the long range pagers operating on a second communication channel
different from the first communication channel, the long range
pagers sharing the second communication channel.
16. A method of registering a personal transceiver unit in a two
way messaging service area of a wireless personal communications
system comprising the steps of:
monitoring a SBC broadcast in a voice service area with the
personal transceiver unit;
switching to a predetermined paging frequency if no SBC is
detected;
acquiring a long range pager broadcasting on said paging
frequency by (a) searching for a strongest received long range
pager signal; (b) synchronizing the transceiver unit to a long
range pager having the strongest signal; and (c) reading a
transmitter ID for the long range pager having the strongest
signal; and
registering a location of the personal transceiver unit with
the wireless personal communications system via the long range
pager.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lucas 4,506,384 Mar. 19, 1985
Harrison et al. (Harrison) 5,406,629 Apr. 11, 1995
Arnold et al. (Arnold) 5,475,677 Dec. 12, 1995
Yamada et al. (Yamada) 5,504,803 Apr. 02, 1996
(filed Aug. 2, 1993)
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
1 We note that although the examiner fails to include
claims 5 through 7 in the statement of the rejection, the
examiner discusses claims 5 through 7 with the claims rejected
over Driessen in view of Okada, Lucas, and Arnold, and appellants
have treated them as being rejected together. Accordingly, we
have included claims 5 through 7 in this rejection.
3
Okada et al. (Okada) 5,526,398 Jun. 11, 1996
(filed May 4, 1993)
Driessen et al. (Driessen) 5,574,771 Nov. 12, 1996
(filed Aug. 15, 1994)
Claims 1 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Driessen in view of Okada and Lucas.
Claims 3 through 12 and 141 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Driessen in view of
Okada, Lucas, and Arnold.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Driessen in view of Okada, Lucas, and Harrison.
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Driessen in view of Yamada.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 18,
mailed July 19, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
17, filed May 10, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19, filed
September 16, 1999) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
4
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 17,
19, and 20.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite a first communication
channel and a plurality of long range pagers which share a second
communication channel. The examiner admits (Answer, page 6) that
Driessen and Okada fail to disclose the long range pagers sharing
a communication channel. The examiner turns to Lucas to remedy
this deficiency. Specifically, the examiner asserts (Answer,
page 6) that "Lucas, teaches the utilization a single channel or
wherein the transmitters share one communication channel." The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the
combination of Driessen and Okada "by utilizing a single channel
for all the long range pagers as taught by Lucas in order to
minimize the amount of interference caused by the communication
system."
However, as pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 10), to
modify Driessen with the teachings of Okada, the examiner states
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
5
(Answer, page 6) that it would have been obvious to use different
channels for radio ports and long range pagers to "minimize/
eliminate interference between the Micro-cells and Marco-cells
[sic] where there is overlap between the two (Micro and Macro
cells) base station transceivers." Thus, the examiner uses the
same motivation, to eliminate interference, for using different
channels as for using the same channel. We agree with appellants
that these two statements are contradictory, cannot be used
together to reject the claims. Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 13.
In addition, Lucas discloses that interference is avoided
between a local system and a wide area system that overlap with
each other. On the other hand, claim 1 requires that the long
range pagers define a "paging service area outside of the voice
service area." Therefore, to use the teachings of Lucas, the
examiner must apply the disclosure of overlapping systems. Since
this contradicts the claim limitation of separate service areas,
the combination of Driessen and Okada with Lucas fails to meet
the limitation of a paging service area outside of the voice
service area. Accordingly, we further cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
6
The examiner adds Arnold to the combination of Driessen,
Okada, and Lucas to reject claims 3 through 12 and 14 and adds
Harrison to the primary combination to reject claim 15. As
neither Arnold nor Harrison overcomes the shortcomings of
Driessen, Okada, and Lucas, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 3 through 12, 14, and 15.
As to the rejection of claim 16, the examiner admits that
Driessen fails to disclose the claimed steps of monitoring,
switching to a predetermined paging frequency, and acquiring a
long range pager broadcasting. The examiner contends that Yamada
fills in these gaps. However, as argued by appellants (Brief,
page 19), Yamada focuses on selecting one of many frequency
channels available for use by a WTS, whereas claim 16 recites
switching to a predetermined frequency. Further, Yamada selects
the strongest channel whereas the claim recites selecting the
strongest signal on a predetermined channel. Lastly, as stated
by appellants (Brief, page 20), Yamada is not related to long
range pagers, and therefore does not suggest the claimed steps
for "acquiring a long range pager broadcasting." As the examiner
admits that Driessen also does not disclose such steps, the
combination fails to meet each and every limitation of claim 16
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
7
and the claims which depend therefrom. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3 through
17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
APJ/tdl
Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
8
HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATION
BLDG 001 M/S A109
P O BOX 956
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245-0956