Ex parte Nilssen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2000

08181833 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte OLE K. NILSSEN
__________
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application 08/181,833
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 16, 21 and 27 through 31.
Claims 17 through 20 have been indicated by the examiner to be
directed to allowable subject matter. Claims 4, 6, 7, 22
through 26 and 32 through 45 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
2
The invention pertains to a telephone and auxiliary power
distribution system and is best illustrated by reference to
representative independent claim 1 reproduced as follows:
1. An arrangement comprising:
a branch telephone exchange system having a set of first
signal input/output ports as well as a set of second
input/output ports; the first input/output ports being
connected with telephone lines from a local telephone company,
such that each one of the first input/output ports is
connected with one of those telephone lines; the branch
telephone exchange system being operative: (i) on receipt of a
properly coded signal at any given first input/output port, to
provide connection between that given first input/output port
and any desired second input/output port; and/or (ii) on
receipt of a properly coded signal at any given second
input/output port, to provide connection between that given
second input/output port and one of the first input/output
ports, thereby to provide for connection between said given
second input/output port and one of the telephone lines from
the local telephone company; and
plural buildings; each building having at least one
telephone-type instrument connected, via a signal conveying
means, with one of the second input/output ports; the signal
conveying means including a pair of signal conductors as well
as a wireless signal transmission path;
such that: (i) any given one of said telephone-type
instruments may, on command, be connected with one of the
first input/output ports, thereby to permit a telephone call
to be placed via the local telephone company; and/or (ii) any
person may make, via the local telephone company, telephonic
connection to any desired one of the telephone-type
instruments.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Bendixen et al. 4,890,315 Dec. 26, 1989
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
3
(Bendixen)
Powell (UK) 2 237 709 May. 8, 1991
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 8 through 16, 21 and 27 through 31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Bendixen with regard to claims
1 through 3, 5, 12 through 16, 21 and 27 through 31, adding
Powell, in a new ground of rejection, with regard to claims 8
through 11.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that we do not find many of
appellant’s arguments to be persuasive since they merely point
to certain claim language and state that the reference to
Bendixen fails to disclose or suggest such a feature.
However, appellant very rarely addresses why it wouldn’t have
been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to have
provided for such a feature or features in view of the prior
art.
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
4
Nevertheless, we will reverse the examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because, in our view, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
In applying Bendixen, which deals with a cellular
telephone system, especially for coupling a plurality of
telephones or local units to a remote land line telephone
system, the examiner identifies, generally, various claimed
elements. Taking instant claim 1 as an example and applying
Bendixen, it is seen in Figure 3 of Bendixen that control unit
and audio units 64 and 66 may be considered the claimed
“branch telephone exchange system.” It has an input/output
port at the antenna/radio telephone side of the figure and it
has a plurality of input/outport ports (the claimed “set of
second input/output ports”) on the right side, each port
leading to/from a local unit. Since the left side of the
figure shows bidirectional arrows at the antenna indicative of
transmission and receipt to/from a base station and a remote
land line telephone system, as broadly claimed, it is not
unreasonable to deduce that the wireless connection may be to
“telephone lines from the local telephone company,” as
claimed.
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
5
When the “branch telephone exchange system” in Bendixen
receives a properly coded signal at the first input/outport
port (left side of Figure 3), and that code is indicative of a
desired telephone number, the proper connection is made
between the first port and any one of the desired second
input/output ports, at local units 1...N. It would also be
reasonable to assume that calls can flow in the opposite
direction, i.e. from second ports, local units, to the first
input/output port.
With regard to the claimed “plural buildings,” while not
expressly shown by Bendixen, one might make the argument that
each local unit may be installed in a different building and
that doing so would have been within the skill of the artisan.
Similarly, we might agree with the examiner that the claimed
“signal conveying means including a pair of signal conductors
as well as a wireless signal transmission path” is well known.
In fact, appellant does not appear to deny this (see page 4 of
the principal brief).
However, even viewing the above interpretation in the
best light from the examiner’s viewpoint, Bendixen still
appears to lack a disclosure or suggestion of critical claim
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
6
language. Claim 1 requires a “set of first signal
input/output ports” [emphasis ours]. It also requires that
the branch telephone exchange be operative to provide a
connection between the second input/output ports “and one of
the first input/output ports” [emphasis ours]. From our
reading of Bendixen (see column 2, lines 47-53), it appears
that once a unit is placed in communication with the
transceiver, “any other unit attempting to use the system to
initiate communication via the transceiver will receive a busy
signal from the control unit indicating that the system...is
not currently available.” Accordingly, it seems that there is
only one channel, or a single first input/output port in
Bendixen. If so, Bendixen does not have the plurality of such
first input/output ports required by the claim.
Moreover, according to claim 1, each building has a
telephone-type instrument connected, via a signal conveying
means, with one of the second input/output ports and that
signal conveying means must include a pair of signal
conductors as well as a wireless signal transmission path.
Even if we accept the examiner’s interpretation that Bendixen
shows such a signal conveying means on the left side of the
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
The claim does not require the pair of signal conductors1
and the wireless signal transmission path to be in parallel.
7
figure because the two wires running to the antenna constitute
the “pair of signal conductors” and then the antenna provides
for a “wireless signal transmission path,” the claim language1
requires the signal conveying means to be on the right side of
Bendixen’s figure since the connection must be via the “second
input/output ports.” However, while the connections to the
local units may constitute pairs of signal conductors, we find
no indication in Bendixen that there is also a wireless signal
transmission path at this location.
Independent claims 12, 27 and 31 contain similar
language. Claim 12 requires that the equipment in the
buildings be connected “via a wireless signal transmission
path, with one of the second input/output ports,...” Claims
27 and 31 require a connection with “one of the first
input/output ports” [emphasis ours] but Bendixen only appears
to disclose a single first input/output port.
Since Powell (relied on in rejecting claims 8 through 11)
does not provide for the deficiencies noted supra with regard
Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
8
to Bendixen, claims 8 through 11 will stand with the
independent claims as will the other dependent claims.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5,
8 through 16, 21 and 27 through 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
Errol A. Krass )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Lee E. Barrett ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Parshotam S. Lall )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Ole K. Nilssen
Caesar Drive
Barrington, IL 60010