Ex Parte Gupta

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2011

11066956 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KIRTI GUPTA
_____________

Appeal 2009-010228
Application 11/066,956
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MacDONALD,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, 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 2009-010228
Application 11/066,956

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a wireless
telecommunication device that can generate a domain ID, such as a Session
Initiation Protocol Universal Resource Locator (SIP URL), from the wireless
telecommunications network identifier, such as a telephone number or
Mobile Identification Number (MIN) (Spec. ¶ [0008]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A wireless telecommunication device, comprising a computer
platform having at least a memory and a communication interface, the
device further selectively interfacing and sending and receiving data across a
wireless telecommunication network through the communication interface,
the device further receiving a first wireless device identifier in a first
network protocol from a communicating wireless telecommunication device
on the wireless telecommunication network, and the device further including
a converter in the memory to generate a second wireless device identifier for
communicating wireless telecommunications device in a second network
protocol, the converter capable of making a plurality of second wireless
device identifiers based upon the first wireless device identifier.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Appeal 2009-010228
Application 11/066,956

3
Zhang US 6,965,666 B1 Nov. 15, 2005
Cedervall US 7,062,279 B2 Jun. 13, 2006
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhang.
2. Claims 4, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Zhang in view of “applicant admitted prior art.”
3. Claims 5, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Zhang in view of Cedervall.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Zhang teaches “[a] wireless telecommunication
device . . . including a converter in the memory to generate a second wireless
device identifier” as recited in independent claim 1 and similar limitations in
independent claims 9, 10, 17, and 18.

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Appeal 2009-010228
Application 11/066,956

4
ANALYSIS
Analysis with Respect to the Anticipation Rejection
Appellant argues (App. Br. 11-13) that Zhang’s conversion to
generate a second wireless device identifier occurs at the server side, and
does not occur at the wireless telecommunication device as claimed.
Appellant further argues (App. Br. 11, 13) that the Examiner’s interpretation
of Zhang’s database 108, Service Control Point (SCP) 106, and Voice
Command Platform (VCP) 110, which are all involved in the conversion, or
any of the servers disclosed in Zhang, as being “wireless” devices is
unreasonable since none of these devices are described as being wireless.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonable since, on the record before us we can’t find, nor has the
Examiner provided, any evidence to support that Zhang’s devices involved
in the conversion are wireless.
Thus, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 9, 10, 17,
and 18, and for similar reasons the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8,
12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23, and 24.
Analysis with Respect to the Obviousness Rejection
We will also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, 11, 14,
19, and 22 because neither the “applicant admitted prior art,” nor Cedervall,
cures the above cited deficiency.

Appeal 2009-010228
Application 11/066,956

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not shown that Zhang teaches “[a] wireless
telecommunication device . . . including a converter in the memory to
generate a second wireless device identifier” as recited in independent claim
1 and similar limitations in independent claims 9, 10, 17, and 18.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-24 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121