Ex Parte Parrott

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 17, 2007

09385315 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 17, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM M. PARROTT
____________

Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 17, 2007
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17, 21, and 22, which are all of the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appellant’s invention relates to a stand-alone infrared to radio
frequency adapter that enables a computing device to wirelessly link to a
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

network without the need to install additional hardware or software into the
computing device. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary independent claim 1, which is reproduced as follows:
1. An adapter comprising:

an infrared transceiver to transmit and receive information to
and from a computing device via an infrared data port;

a Bluetooth transceiver to transmit and receive information to
and from a data system via a Bluetooth interface; and

a processor coupled to the infrared transceiver and the
Bluetooth transceiver to convert information received from the
infrared transceiver to a Bluetooth protocol format for transfer to the
data system and to convert information received from the Bluetooth
transceiver to an infrared format for transfer to the infrared data port.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Sulavuori US 5,636,264 Jun. 3, 1997
Kobayashi UK 2 324 920 Nov. 4, 1998
Haartsen US 6,574,266 B1 Jun. 3, 2003
(filed Jun. 25, 1999)
Well known in the art.

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kobayashi, Sulavuori, and Haartsen.
2. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi, Sulavuori, and Haartsen and further in view of
well known in the art.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is made to the
Brief and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the
2
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
We affirm.
ISSUE
To show that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004), Appellant’s arguments focus on the claimed
limitation related to a processor for infrared to radio frequency conversion
(Br. 9-11). The issue turns on whether the combination of Kobayashi with
Sulavuori teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the
issue is:
whether the prior art teachings disclose or suggest the claimed
subject matter including a processor coupled to the infrared
transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver for converting
information format between the infrared transceiver and the
Bluetooth transceiver.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s claim 1 requires a processor for the conversion of
information format transmitted between the infrared transceiver and the
Bluetooth transceiver. This conversion is basically an infrared to radio
frequency according to the Bluetooth protocol, which Appellant admits to be
commonly known and used by many manufacturers of communications
devices (Specification 1-2).
Kobayashi discloses an adapter for transmission between infrared and
radio frequency ports in the form of option apparatus 1 (Fig. 2B, p. 12, ll. 9-
3
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

14). The adapter includes a processor in the form of control circuit 12 for
controlling the signal transmission between radio transmitter/receiver circuit
11 and infrared type connection apparatus 16 (p. 13, ll. 5-13).
Sulavuori relates to low power transceiver for transmitting infrared to
radio frequency units in a car phone or other handheld computing devices
(col. 2, ll. 32-46) and discloses specific techniques for conversion between
the infrared units and the radio frequency transmitters (col. 8, l. 47 through
col. 9, l. 28).
Haartsen describes the details of Bluetooth systems for localized two-
way transmission which has become the universal radio interface for
consumer communications devices (col. 4, ll. 6-25).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re
Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover,
in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner correctly points out that while Appellant has disclosed
a processor for converting information format between the infrared
transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver in their Specification without any
specific details, Kobayashi discloses a similar processor as the control circuit
4
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

for processing the signals between the infrared and the radio frequency
transceivers (Answer 10-11). We also note that the particular claimed
conversion technique and the radio interface that relates to the Bluetooth
technology merely relate to the conversion format, which is disclosed by
Sulavuori and Haartsen.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments focusing on each reference
individually for lack of teachings related to the claimed processor, we find
that the Examiner has properly based the rejection on the combination of the
teachings of the prior art references. In that regard, Kobayashi discloses the
processor for infrared to radio frequency conversion while Sulavuori and
Haartsen provide the specific techniques and format for such conversion.
We also find that the Examiner has properly used the suggestions by the
references for facilitating communication between different devices
(Kobayashi, p. 8) and the need for universal and low power interface
(Sulavuori, col. 2, ll. 32-48; Haartsen, col. 4, ll. 11-15) as the basis for
suggesting the combination.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kobayashi, Sulavuori and
Haartsen outlined supra, and to the extent claimed, we agree with the
Examiner’s position that the claimed processor coupled to the infrared
transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver for converting information format
between the infrared transceiver and the Bluetooth transceiver is suggested
by the prior art.
Appellant makes separate arguments related to claims 7-14, 16, 17,
and 22 (Br. 12-13) and for claims 3 and 12 (Br. 14). However, Appellant
relies on similar arguments discussed above and fails to point to any error in
the Examiner’s position with sufficient particularity. Accordingly, we
5
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

remain unconvinced by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, Appellant fails to show that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting the claims or the rejection is not supported by a legally
sufficient basis for holding that the claimed subject would have been
obvious within the meaning of § 103(a). In view of our analysis above, we
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17, 21, and 22
over the combination of Kobayashi, Sulavuori, and Haartsen and of claims 3
and 12 over Kobayashi, Sulavuori, and Haartsen in view of the well known
in the art.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-17, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

6
Appeal 2007-0253
Application 09/385,315

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).

AFFIRMED

tdl/gw

LIBBY HOPE, ESQ.
12400 WILSHIRE BLVD. 7TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025-1030
7