Ex Parte Gurevich

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2011

11015096 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID GUREVICH
____________

Appeal 2009-008539
Application 11/015,096
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, 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 2009-008539
Application 11/015,096

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to methods and an apparatus enabling a
Generic Client (GC) to provide simultaneous communication with both
infrastructure and ad-hoc networks in compliance with the IEEE 802.11
protocol (Spec. 3:19-24).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as
follows:
1. A wireless communication device, comprising:
a processor configured to operate multiple virtual network
interfaces that communicate simultaneously over a common wireless
physical interface with different wireless networks.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahl (US
2003/0054818 A1) and Cromer (US 2005/0165916 A1) because the
references merely teach communicating over one network at a time rather
than the claimed communicating simultaneously over different wireless
networks (App. Br. 9-11). Appellant further responds to the Examiner’s
assertion (Ans. 8-12) that the wireless devices in Bahl operate
simultaneously because the switching is transparent to the system
2
Appeal 2009-008539
Application 11/015,096

components, stating that Bahl only contemplates switching between modes
and not simultaneously communicating over different networks (Reply Br.
2-3).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
the combination of Bahl and Cromer fails to teach or suggest the recited
processor configured to operate multiple virtual interfaces that communicate
simultaneously over a common interface with different wireless networks?

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents arguments as to why the Examiner has erred.
(App. Br. 9-11.) We agree with Appellant’s contentions above.
We understand the Examiner’s position to be that Bahl communicates
simultaneously in different networks because the reference discloses
switching between the two communication modes is transparent to the
components of the operating system (Ans. 8-9). The Examiner further states
that such transparent switching shows that the dual mode system operates
simultaneously/concurrently in different networks (id.).
As stated by Appellant (Reply Br. 2-3), regardless of transparency,
when Bahl switches back and forth between the two modes (¶ [0031]),
operating in each network requires disabling the other network adapter (¶
[0007]. Therefore, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 10-11) that
communication in Bahl occurs in only one mode at a time and therefore,
cannot meet the claimed simultaneous communication with different
wireless networks.
3
Appeal 2009-008539
Application 11/015,096

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because the
combination of Bahl and Cromer fails to teach or suggest the claimed
operating multiple virtual interfaces that communicate simultaneously over a
common interface with different wireless networks. Other independent
claims 10 and 22 include a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1, which
was discussed above and determined not to be taught or suggested by the
references. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1,
10, and 22, as well as claims 2-9, 11-21, and 23-25 dependent thereon,
cannot be sustained.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed.

4
Appeal 2009-008539
Application 11/015,096

REVERSED

ELD

MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C.-SRI INTERNATIONAL
210 SW MORRISON ST., SUITE 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204
5