Ex parte Lee et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 19, 2000

08587087 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2000)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and
is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte WILLIAM CHIEN-YEH LEE and MICHAEL L. OLSON
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 30
through 38.
The disclosed invention relates to a wide area paging
system wherein an acknowledgment signal from a pager is
forwarded from base station to base station in a mesh network
until it reaches a gateway connecting the mesh network to a
paging broadcast system.
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
2
Claim 30 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
30. A wide area paging system, comprising:
(a) a paging broadcast system for transmitting
paging broadcast signals over a first channel to
pagers throughout a prescribed geographic area, the
paging broadcast system including one or more
transmitters for broadcasting the paging broadcast
signals throughout the prescribed geographic area,
the system including a paging control center for
initiating the paging broadcast signals in response
to received paging requests;
b) a paging response system for receiving paging
response signals over a second channel from the
pagers throughout the prescribed geographic area,
the paging response system including a mesh network
comprised of a plurality of interconnected base
stations for communi-cating the paging response
signals therebetween over a third channel, wherein
one or more of the base stations includes a paging
receiver;
(c) the pagers receiving the paging broadcast
signals and transmitting the paging response signals
to the paging receiver of one of the base stations
in the mesh network in response thereto, the base
station receiving the paging response signals
including a signal conversion device for
transforming the paging response signal received
from the pager into a signal that is properly
formatted for transmission between the base
stations, the base station receiving the paging
response signal thereafter automatically selecting a
neighboring base station to use for forwarding the
paging response signals through the mesh network,
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
Claim 38 is not listed in the statement of the rejection of the claims1
on appeal (answer, pages 4 and 5).
3
the base stations thereby transmitting the paging
response signals through the mesh network to a
gateway connecting the mesh network to the paging
broadcast system, the gateway thereafter
transmitting the paging response signals to the
paging control center as an acknowledgement to the
paging broadcast signals.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Leyburn et al. (Leyburn) 3,575,558 Apr. 20,
1971
Wesby 5,051,741 Sept. 24, 1991
Lee, “Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems,”
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1989, pages 70 and 71.
Bartee, “Data Communications, Networks, and
Systems,” SAMS, 1991, pages 215 through 218.
Claims 30 through 34 and 37 stand rejected under 351
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wesby in view of
Leyburn and Bartee.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wesby in view of Leyburn, Bartee and
Lee.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
4
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 30
through 38.
According to the examiner (answer, page 4), Wesby
discloses a system that broadcasts a page signal on broadcast
channel F1,
and the pager transponder 50 acknowledges the page with a
response TF1 to a plurality of base stations in a mesh array
(Figures 1 and 2). The examiner indicates (answer, page 4)
that “[t]he mesh communicates to a gateway 40 which returns
signals to the paging controller 30.”
Leyburn discloses the use of a gateway interface 12
between a telephone system and a paging center (Figure 1).
Based upon such teachings, the examiner is of the opinion
(answer, page 4) that “it would have been obvious to one of
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
5
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
utilized a gateway as claimed in order to permit a telephone
network to communicate with the Wesby system.”
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that Wesby
“utilizes a Star communication network for communication
between the central station and the nodes,” but concludes that
“this can be considered to be a Mesh network in some
instances.” More
importantly, the examiner acknowledges (answer, page 4) that
Wesby “does not pass signals from one node to another node in
an
attempt to communicate to the central [station].” For such a
teaching, the examiner turns to the mesh network teachings of
Bartee which provide for “alternative routes in case of
failure, and is therefore advantageous over a star network”
(answer,
page 4). For such an advantage, the examiner concludes
(answer, pages 4 and 5) that “it would have been obvious to
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
6
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have utilized a MESH network (one node forwards to
subsequent nodes until reaching the gateway) in the above
modified system in order to provide alternative routes in case
of failure” as taught by Bartee.
Appellants argue (brief, page 8) that “[t]he
communications stations of Wesby only communicate with the
master station, but not with each other, and thus describe a
bus rather than a mesh network.” “Indeed, since the
communications stations of Wesby only communicate with the
master station, but not with each other, they have no need for
. . . a signal conversion device” as
claimed (brief, page 8). In summary, appellants argue (brief,
page 9) that “even if combined, the cited references lack all
the elements recited in the combination of Appellants’
independent claim 30.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Wesby discloses a
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
7
locator system in which each of the individual communication
stations 40 must communicate directly with the master station
30 (column 4, lines 56 through 60; column 5, lines 57 and 58;
column 7, lines 36 through 39). If a signal from one
communication station is routed to another communication
station, then the locator system will not be able to locate
the exact position of transponder 50. For this reason, the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 30 through 34 and 37 is
reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 35 and 36 is
reversed because the mobile cellular telecommunications
teachings of Lee do not cure the noted shortcoming in the
combined teachings of the references.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 30 through
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
8
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
kwh/vsh
Appeal No. 1998-2723
Application No. 08/571,679
9
GEORGE H. GATES
MERCHANT, GOULD, SMITH, EDELL
WELTER & SCHMIDT
11150 SANTA MONICA BLVD.
SUITE 400
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025