Ex Parte Mohammed

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2012

10116186 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2012)

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.
10/116,186 04/02/2002 Jahangir Mohammed KNTO.P0009 2963
48947 7590 08/01/2012
ADELI & TOLLEN, LLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
EXAMINER
IQBAL, KHAWAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2012 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 JAHANGIR MOHAMMED
____________

Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-40 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
The Invention
Exemplary Claim 1 follows:
1. A wireless communication handset, comprising:

licensed wireless communication signal processing
circuitry;

unlicensed wireless communication signal processing
circuitry; and

a control circuit connected to said licensed wireless
communication signal processing circuitry, said control circuit
handing off an ongoing call without interruption between said
licensed wireless communication signal processing circuitry
and said unlicensed wireless communication signal processing
circuitry.

The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, 17-20, 23, and 26-30
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rautiola (U.S. Patent No.
6,853,851 B1) in view of Kallio (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2002/0147008 A1) (Ans. 4-8).
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rautiola in view of Kallio and Bjorndahl (U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0065099 A1) (Ans. 9).
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 16, 24, 25, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rautiola in view of Kallio and
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

3
Raith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0102974 A1) (Ans. 9-
11).
The Examiner rejected claims 33 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rautiola in view of Kallio and Bender (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2006/0148511 A1) (Ans. 11).
The Examiner rejected claims 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rautiola in view of Kallio and Dowling (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2005/0198199 A1) (Ans. 11-14).

ISSUES
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Rautiola and Kallio teaches a “control circuit handing off an ongoing call
without interruption between said licensed wireless communication signal
processing circuitry and said unlicensed wireless communication signal
processing circuitry,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly
recited in independent claim 17?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Raith teaches a wireless
handset including “instructions to prompt a user to enter a landline telephone
number associated with an unlicensed wireless communication base station,”
as recited in claim 16 and as similarly recited in claim 31?

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 1-15, 17-30, and 32-40
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

4
obviousness rejection of claims 1-15, 17-30, and 32-40. We adopt as our
own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-28) in response to arguments made for
claims 1-15, 17-30, and 32-40 in the Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We
highlight and address certain findings and arguments below.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
17 as obvious because Rautiola and Kallio “do not disclose a control circuit
connected to licensed wireless system signal processing circuitry for handing
off an ongoing call from a licensed to an unlicensed system” (App. Br. 8 and
11) (emphasis omitted). In support of this contention, Appellant argues that
Figures 4 of Rautiola “is not a hardware diagram and item 431 is not a
control circuit” (id. at 11). Appellant further argues that “Kallio does not
even mention the word ‘circuit’” (id. at 9).
The Examiner found, however, that Rautiola teaches a dual mode
wireless handset having licensed and “unlicensed wireless communication
signal processing circuitry” (Ans. 15). The Examiner also found that “Kallio
teaches a method for providing seamless mobility between a GSM network
and a different local radio network such that an active handover state for an
ongoing call for a GSM network to a local radio network is performed” (id.
at 16). We agree with the Examiner. Figure 4 of Rautiola shows a handset
(41) including licensed wireless communication signal processing circuitry
(441, 442, and 451) and unlicensed wireless communication signal
processing circuitry (443, 452) and a control circuit (431) (Rautiola, FIG. 4).
And Kallio teaches a “seamless network mobility architecture in an
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

5
ACTIVE handover state from a GSM network to a local radio network such
as a wireless LAN” (Kallio, ¶ [0043], FIG. 4). Moreover, in order for the
devices of Rautiola and Kallio to perform licensed and unlicensed wireless
communication and a handover from one to the other, they must necessarily
have hardware and software. Accordingly, the claim requirement of a
control circuit handing off a call between licensed and unlicensed wireless
circuitry is a combination of familiar elements from Rautiola and Kallio that
yields predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007).
Appellant also argues that “[t]here is no reason why it would be
obvious to combine Rautiola and Kallio” (App. Br. 9 and 11) (emphasis
omitted). As explained by the Examiner, however, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the teachings of licensed and unlicensed
wireless communication in Rautiola with the teachings of seamless handover
in Kallio “to transfer information directly from one network to another
network without having any interruption” (Ans. 17). Accordingly, we find
no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 17.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
11-13, and 26-28 because the combination of Rautiola and Kallio does not
teach executable instructions to authenticate that a wireless handset is
authorized to operate within an unlicensed wireless service area, to direct a
licensed wireless authentication request to an unlicensed base station, and to
receive licensed wireless security information from an unlicensed base
station (App. Br. 14-17). In support of these contentions, Appellant argues
that “Rautiola discloses an MS-IP gatekeeper that authenticates network
entities, not a handset that authenticates” (id. at 14) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

6
The Examiner found, however, that Rautiola teaches the claimed
authentication and communication features because it teaches a dual mode
wireless handset that operates in both licensed and unlicensed service areas
(Ans. 23-24). We agree with the Examiner. Rautiola teaches control
management 431 in a mobile device 41 that “provides mobile management
432 and radio resource management” (Rautiola, col. 9, ll. 41-43) (emphasis
omitted). Moreover, Rautiola’s mobile station can switch from licensed
wireless communication to unlicensed wireless communication “when the
mobile station 41 and the personal base unit 42 are ‘connected’” (id. at col.
9, ll. 46-47) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the claimed authentication
and communication features are a combination of familiar elements that
yields predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Thus, we find no error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 11-13 and 26-28.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32
and 34 as obvious (App. Br. 19-20). Appellant argues that Rautiola and
Kallio do not teach that a control circuit in a handset “for handing off an
ongoing call comprises a processor” (id. at 19). Appellant also argues that
Bender does not disclose “that the control circuit comprises a programmable
logic device (PLD)]” (id. at 20). Appellant also argues that the Examiner
did not provide “any rationale that would have make [sic] the combination
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made” (id.).
As explained supra, however, Rautiola teaches a dual mode wireless
handset having licensed and unlicensed wireless communication circuitry
and Kallio teaches seamless mobility between a GSM network and a local
radio network. Moreover, in order for the devices of Rautiola and Kallio to
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

7
perform licensed and unlicensed wireless communication and a handover,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that they must have a
circuit and that the circuit could include a processor. In addition, Bender
teaches that hardware for performing handover could include “a general-
purpose processor or a specially designed processor operated to execute
instruction codes” (Bender, ¶ [0066]). And programmable logic devices are
well-known alternatives for control units. Accordingly, the claimed wireless
communication handover using a processor or programmable logic device is
a combination of familiar elements that yields predictable results. KSR, 550
U.S. 398, at 416. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 32 and 34.
As to claims 2 and 25, Appellant argues that nothing in “Rautiola or
Kallio provides for simultaneous processing of signals by both licensed and
unlicensed communication signal processing circuitry” (App. Br. 13).
Appellant further argues that Rautiola does not teach handing off an ongoing
call from a licensed to an unlicensed system” (Id. at 14). The Examiner
found, however, that the combination of Rautiola and Kallio renders claims
2 and 25 obvious because Rautiola teaches the simultaneous processing of
signals by licensed and unlicensed communication circuitry and Kallio
teaches handing off a call from a licensed GSM system to an unlicensed
local radio network (Ans. 22). We agree with the Examiner. Rautiola
shows licensed GSM communication circuitry (128a) and unlicensed
bluetooth communication circuitry (128b) that process signals
simultaneously (FIG. 12; col. 12 ll. 19-59). And Kallio teaches handing off
a call from a licensed GSM system to an unlicensed wireless LAN (¶¶
[0045] – [0047]), Thus, the claim limitation of simultaneously processing
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

8
signals with licensed and unlicensed communication circuitry prior to call
handoff is a combination of familiar elements from Rautiola and Kallio that
yields predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 25. We also affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-10, 14, 15, 18-24, 29, 30, 33, and 35-40 because
Appellant did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for those
claims (See App. Br. 8-21).

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 16 and 31
In support of the rejection of claims 16 and 31, the Examiner cites
only to Raith’s disclosure of prompting a user of a mobile device for a
number (Ans. 10). But as explained by Appellant, claims 16 and 31 require
more; they require “executable instructions to prompt a user to enter a
landline telephone number associated with an unlicensed wireless
communication base station” (App. Br. 18) (emphasis omitted). And the
Examiner has not explained why it would have been obvious to prompt a
user for the landline number of an unlicensed wireless base station in light of
Raith’s limited disclosure (See Ans. 18). Accordingly, we find that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 16 and 31 as obvious.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15, 17-30, and
32-40 as obvious and reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16
and 31.
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).
Appeal 2010-004373
Application 10/116,186

9

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

llw