Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2015

12947405 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2015)

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.
12/947,405 11/16/2010 Jai-dong KIM 678-1127 CON
(P10884CON1)
1834
66547 7590 06/24/2015
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2015 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 JAI-DONG KIM and JAI-HO LEE
____________

Appeal 2013-004899
Application 12/947,405
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final
rejection of claims 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We have reviewed Appellants’ contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
contentions. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding the combination of Takayama (US 2002/0025810 A1) and
Engwer (US 7,082,114 B1) teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
“determining whether the one or more WLAN APs of the list match the
plurality of WLAN APs identified by the WLAN access information stored
in the access information management DB,” as recited in independent claims
1 and 10.
Appeal 2013-004899
Application 12/947,405

2
The Examiner finds Takayama teaches the disputed limitation. Ans.
2–4 (citing Takayama ¶¶ 81–85); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Takayama ¶¶ 12,
18, 52, 81, 84, and 88). The cited sections of Takayama teach an access
point stores hopping information of neighboring access points in a database
and the access point with the best radio situation is selected when a quality
of the connected access point is reduced below a predetermined value.
Takayama ¶¶ 18, 81–84. If the hopping information of neighbor access
points is not downloaded in the database, the CPU scans all channels of the
radio frequency and then subscribes to the access point having the best radio
environment. Takayama ¶ 83, Fig. 8. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br.
3) that these sections do not teach neighboring access points generated from
the scanning procedure (list of accessible APs) are compared to neighboring
access points of the database (APs identified by WLAN access information
stored in the access information management DB). Accordingly, we
determine the Examiner has not established Takayama teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation. The Examiner has not found the additional
references of record teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Therefore, we
do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1 and
10; and their dependent claims 2–9 and 11–17.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–17 are reversed.

REVERSED

em