Ex Parte Kim et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

10439653 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

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.
10/439,653 05/16/2003 Jai-Dong Kim 678-1127 7916
66547 7590 09/16/2010
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, LLP
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JAI-DONG KIM and JAI-HO LEE
_____________

Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1The 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 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus that maintains a
wireless connection with mobile terminal based upon currently accessible
and pre-registered wireless networks. See Spec: 1-17. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A mobile terminal apparatus, comprising:
an access information management database (DB)
storing pre-registered Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) access information of WLAN Access Points
(APs) for service positions of a plurality of WLANs
accessible by the mobile terminal apparatus;
an access information collector collecting information for
WLAN APs being accessible at a current position of the
mobile terminal apparatus;
an access information analyzer analyzing the collected
information of the access information collector, and
creating a list of all WLAN APs accessible at the current
position of the mobile terminal apparatus based on the
analysis;
a comparator comparing the list of the WLAN APs with
the WLAN access information stored in the access
information management DB to determine if the Access
Points are matched;
an access information automatic changer automatically
changing a current WLAN access information of the mobile
terminal apparatus into other WLAN access information
corresponding to a matched AP of the list of the WLAN
APs in accordance with a result of the comparing in the
comparator; and
2
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

an access information generator automatically generating
new WLAN access information to automatically change the
current WLAN access information in case where no WLAN
access information is matched with the APs contained in the
list of the WLAN APs in accordance with the result of the
comparing in the comparator.

REFERENCE
Takayama US 2002/0025810 A1 Feb. 28, 2002

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takayama. Ans. 3-8.
ISSUES
First Basis for Appeal (Claims 1-8)
Appellants argue on page 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1-2 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 is in error. We select
independent claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 2-8
since Appellants do not separately argue these claims with particularity. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that Takayama does not
disclose a database that stores “pre-registered Wireless Local Area Network
(WLAN) access information of WLAN Access Points (APs) for service
positions of a plurality of WLANs accessible by the mobile terminal
apparatus.” App. Br. 9.
Thus, with respect to claim 1, Appellants’ contention presents us with
the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Takayama discloses an access
information management database (DB) storing pre-registered Wireless
3
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

Local Area Network (WLAN) access information of WLAN Access Points
(APs) for service positions of a plurality of WLANs accessible by the
mobile terminal apparatus?
Second Basis for Appeal (Claims 9-15)
Appellants argue on page 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 1-2 of the
Reply Brief that claims 9-15 are allowable for the same reasons claims 1-8
are allowable.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 9-15 present us with the same issues as claims 1-8.
Third Basis for Appeal (Claims 1-8)
Appellants argue on page 11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 3-4 of the
Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 is in error. We again
select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner admits that Takayama, alone, does not
disclose “storing pre-registered WLAN access information” since the
Examiner used Appellants’ Specification in the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection.
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue that this is an improper 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, with respect to claim 1, Appellants’ contention presents us the
issue: Did the Examiner make an improper 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection?
4
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF.)
1. Takayama discloses a system that locates a neighboring access point
when the quality of a currently accessed access point falls below a
particular threshold. ¶ [0017].
2. In order to accomplish this goal, neighboring access points register
their hopping information with each other. This information is
updated periodically. ¶ [0018].
3. The mobile station currently accessing the access point downloads
this information into its own memory as soon as it becomes available.
¶ [0045].

ANALYSIS
First Basis for Appeal (Claims 1-8)
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1. Claim 1 recites “an access information management
database (DB) storing pre-registered Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN)
access information of WLAN Access Points (APs) for service positions of a
plurality of WLANs accessible by the mobile terminal apparatus.”
Appellants argue that Takayama does not disclose a database that stores pre-
registered Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) access information. App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 2. Also, Appellants argue that Takayama discloses hopping
information, which is not access information. Reply Br. 2. We disagree.
Takayama discloses a system wherein access points that neighbor
each other register hopping information with each other and store it in their
5
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

memory. FF 2. This information is then passed on to the mobile station
currently in contact with the access point. FF 3. The mobile station
concurrently downloads this information into its own database. FF 3.
Therefore, since the hopping information is registered with the access points
prior to passing the information to the mobile station, the information is pre-
registered. In addition, since the information is stored in the mobile station’s
database, the database is equivalent to the present application’s access
information management database.
Additionally, the Examiner finds that “hopping information” is
equivalent to Appellants’ access information as it is used to access a WLAN
Access Point. Ans. 3. Since the database as disclosed in Appellants’
Specification and Takayama may contain different information, we will not
import limitations from the Specification into the claims. Similarly,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner’s broad
interpretation is unreasonable or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification.
Therefore, we find such interpretation to be reasonable and, therefore, adopt
the Examiner’s interpretation. As such, Appellants’ arguments are not found
to be persuasive.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 1. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-8 that are grouped with claim 1.
Second Basis of Appeal (Claims 9-15)
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-15. Independent claim 9 contains similar
limitations to independent claim 8 and claims 10-15 depend upon claim 9.
6
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

Appellants’ arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 1-2. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9-15 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claims 1-8.
Third Basis of Appeal (Claims 1-8)
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8. Appellants argue that the Examiner has
included Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art in the rejection of these claims.
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3-4. However, the rejection does not refer to
Appellants’ Specification. The Examiner’s statements are merely clarifying
what is known in the art. The Examiner did not rely on Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art for the rejection of the claims. Ans. 9. Therefore, we do
not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive, and the Examiner has
properly rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Takayama discloses an
access information management database (DB) storing pre-registered
Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) access information of WLAN
Access Points (APs) for service positions of a plurality of WLANs
accessible by the mobile terminal apparatus.
The Examiner did not make an improper 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection.

7
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) 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).

8
Appeal 2009-007674
Application 10/439,653

AFFIRMED

ELD

THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 BROADHOLLOW ROAD
SUITE 210E
MELVILLE, NY 11747
9