Ex Parte Hammond et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

12287507 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

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.
12/287,507 10/09/2008 Marc John Hammond HAMMOND 2-3 8811
74402 7590 09/27/2013
IP Legal Services
1500 East Lancaster Avenue, Suite 100
P.O. Box 1027
Paoli, PA 19301
EXAMINER
DOAN, KIET M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2013 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 MARC JOHN HAMMOND and
POONVANPILLI GOPAL MADHAVAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before GLENN J. PERRY, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-22.
2
Appellants cancelled claims 3, 4, 6, 11,
12, 16, and 18. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to location service assisted transition between
wireless networks, in which a mobile client can access alternative wide area
and local area wireless networks. Spec. 1:1-9. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of transitioning a mobile client between two
different type networks, comprising:
establishing a mobile client in a telecommunications
network, said mobile client including a first radio transmission
module and a second radio transmission module;
determining a latitude/longitude position of said mobile
client;
establishing a transition time and place relative to said
mobile client coming to a capture area of an IEEE 802.11
wireless local area network;
using said transition time and place to pre-initiate an
action ready in advance of said mobile client entering said
capture area of said IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network;
verifying that said mobile client has entered said capture
area of said IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network based on
said determination of said latitude/longitude position of said
mobile client; and transitioning said mobile client from said
telecommunications network to said IEEE 802.11 wireless local
area network, said transitioning comprising:

1
Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Sep. 21, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 16,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 22, 2010).
2
The Real Party in Interest is LSI Corporation.
Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507

3
first ceasing transmission from said first radio
transmission module in said mobile client associated with
said telecommunications network,
then initiating transmission from said second radio
transmission module in said mobile client associated with
said IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network after
ceasing transmission from said first radio transmission
module, and
connecting said mobile client to said IEEE 802.11
wireless local area network.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Krishnan
Bridgelall
U.S. 6,381,453 B1
U.S. 7,039,027 B2
Apr. 30, 2002
May 2, 2006
Kallio U.S. 2002/0147008 A1 Oct. 10, 2002

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 13-15, 17 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kallio and Bridgelall. Ans. 4-8.
Claims 10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kallio, Bridgelall and Krishnan. Ans. 8-9.

ANALYSIS
Appellants Appeal Brief presents us with the following issue with
respect to claim 1:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Kallio and Bridgelall teach or
suggest “that the latitude/longitude position of the mobile client is
determined, and a transition time and place relative to said mobile client is
Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507

4
established when coming to a capture area of an IEEE 802.11 wireless local
area network” as presented in claim 1? App. Br. 10.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Bridgelall
“suggest determining a latitude/longitude of the mobile client” because
“Bridgelall describes switching to a specific network based on knowledge of
the network physical location.” Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants allege
that Bridgelall teaches a mobile user is able to roam between two different
networks, a WWAN and WLAN, but that in Bridgelall a user “roam[s] to a
specific network based on knowledge of the network physical location.”
App. Br. 10 (citing Bridgelall, col. 15, ll. 43-46)(internal quotations
omitted). In sum, Appellants argue “Bridgelall does not describe or suggest
that the latitude/longitude position of the mobile client is determined, and a
transition time and place relative to said mobile client is established when
coming to a capture area of an IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network.”
App. Br. 10.
The Examiner responds that Bridgelall teaches or suggests that
“physical location can be determined by GPS or Real Time Location
System.” Ans. 10 (citing Bridgelall, col. 15, ll. 43-52). Thus, the methods
describing roaming may be based on the location of the mobile client
relative to the network. Ans. 10-11.
Having reviewed Appellants’ arguments, we agree with the Examiner.
We find that the Bridgelall expressly references “an integrated GPS or Real
Time Location System” as a method for a user to “switch or roam based on
knowledge of the network physical location.” See Bridgelall, col. 15, ll. 43-
48. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that Bridgelall only teaches switching
or roaming based on the position of the network , Bridgelall expressly
Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507

5
discusses triangulation methods to locate the mobile user and expressly
incorporates a reference that uses an object locator and beacon “using angle
of arrival estimates and triangulation for determining a position of an
object.” Bridgelall, col. 15, ll. 59-61.
A determination of obviousness does not require the claimed
invention to be expressly suggested by anyone or all of the references. See
e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The test for obviousness
is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all
of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See id.
In the present case, we find that Bridgelall’s teachings regarding
location of the user via GPS or triangulation methods in combination with
the teachings regarding roaming between networks, suggests a method of
roaming or switching to a specific network based on the location of the
object or user. See Bridgelall, col. 15, ll. 43-61 (referring to location of the
user via beacon, triangulation and GPS), col. 13, l. 20 – col. 14, l. 23
(referring to roaming method), col. 8, l. 57 – col. 9, l. 6 (describing mobile
using beacon to roam). Thus, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Bridgelall suggests “establishing a transition time and place relative to said
mobile client coming to a capture area” by using the mobile location in the
process to roam between WWAN and WLAN. See Ans. 10 (citing
Bridgelall, col. 13, ll. 30-37, col. 15, ll. 46-60).
For the reasons above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in finding that Kallio and Bridgelall teach or suggest “determining a
latitude/longitude position of said mobile client” and “establishing a
Appeal 2011-005372
Application 12/287,507

6
transition time and place relative to said mobile client coming to a capture
area” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue claim 1 as representative of independent claim 13
and dependent claims 2, 5, 7-10, independent claims 14, 15, 17, 19-22. App.
Br. 11. With respect to claims 10 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
Appellants also rely on the same argument presented with respect to claim 1.
App. Br. 11-12. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-
22.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-
10, 13-15, 17, and 19-22 is affirmed.

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

AFFIRMED

ELD