Ex Parte QuinnDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201310890014 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte LIAM B. QUINN1 ____________________ Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Real Party in Interest is Dell Products L.P. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 The Invention Appellant’s invention relates in general to the field of information handling system networking, and more particularly to a system and method for task selective wireless networking. Spec. p. 1, ll. 7-9 (“Field of the Invention”). Exemplary Claims Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added): 1. A system for allocating tasks between wireless networks, the system comprising: an information handling system operable to process information and having first and second wireless networking interfaces, the first interface operable to support communication through a first wireless network, the second interface operable to support communication through the second wireless network; plural peripherals, each peripheral operable to interact with the information handling system through at least one of the wireless networks; and a switch having the first and second wireless interfaces disposed in a housing the housing separate from the information handling system and peripherals, the switch operable to selectively allocate communication between the 2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 16, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 30, 2010); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 4, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed Oct. 30, 2008); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Jul. 13, 2004). Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 3 information handling system and peripherals through the first and second wireless networks. Claim 10 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added): 10. An information handling system networking switch comprising: an antenna operable to communicate information in a first band associated with a first wireless network and in a second band associated with a second wireless network; a wireless local area network module interfaced with the antenna and operable to communicate information in the first band; a wireless personal area network module interfaced with the antenna and operable to communicate information in the second band; and a task allocation module interfaced with the wireless local area network module and the wireless personal area network, the task allocation module operable to selectively communicate information between an information handling system and plural peripherals over the first or second band based on one or more factors. Claim 17 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added): 17. A method for communicating information between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals, the method comprising: Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 4 co-locating first and second wireless network transceivers, the first transceiver communicating information in a first network band, the second transceiver communicating information in a second network band; classifying network information according to one or more factors as local area network information and personal area network information; allocating the local area network information to the first wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals; and allocating the personal area network information to the second wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Karaoguz US 2002/0059434 A1 May 16, 2002 Vij US 6,452,910 B1 Sep. 17, 2002 McCorkle US 6,505,032 B1 Jan. 7, 2003 D’Souza US 2003/0058839 A1 Mar. 27, 2003 Lin US 2005/0148358 A1 Jul. 7, 2005 Rejections on Appeal 1. Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Karaoguz. Ans. 3. 2. Claims 4-7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin and Karaoguz in view of McCorkle. Ans. 4. Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 5 3. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin, McCorkle, and Karaoguz in view of D’Souza. Ans. 6. 4. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karaoguz in view of D’Souza. Ans. 6. 5. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karaoguz in view of Vij. Ans. 7. 6. Claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Karaoguz. Ans. 7. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to claims 1-20, and 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 and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Arguments. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 10, and 17 for emphasis as follows. 1. Rejection of Claims 1-9 Issue 1 Appellant argues (App. Br. 3-4; Reply Br. 1) that the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lin in Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 6 view of Karaoguz is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed system for allocating tasks between wireless networks is taught or suggested by the combination of Lin and Karaoguz, particularly that the combination teaches or suggests, inter alia, “a switch having the first and second wireless interfaces disposed in a housing the housing separate from the information handling system and peripherals, the switch operable to selectively allocate communication between the information handling system and peripherals through the first and second wireless networks,” as recited in claim 1? Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Lin and Karaoguz teaches or suggests “a switch having the first and second wireless interfaces disposed in a housing the housing separate from the information handling system and peripherals, the switch operable to selectively allocate communication between the information handling system and peripherals through the first and second wireless networks,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-4 and 10. Appellant contends that: Element 110 [of Karaoguz] does not disclose a switch, but rather discloses a gateway that allows a PDA or mobile phone to “switch” to a HomeRF mode upon entering a home. The Examiner’s statement in the advisory action that “it is well known in the art that a gateway can include switching functions which enables them to function as switches” is unsupported by any evidence. In any event, the gateway of Karaoguz does not provide dual bandwidth; rather, the PDA or mobile phone switches between a cell phone mode to a HomeRF or Bluetooth Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 7 mode. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Board reverse the rejection of Claim 1. App. Br. 4. We specifically agree with the Examiner’s finding that Karaoguz teaches that its switch (i.e., multi-mode wireless communications device) selectively allocates communication between the information handling system and peripherals through the first and second wireless networks using the network selector. Ans. 10 (citing Karaoguz ¶ [0050]). Further, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the device controls and manages network access to a nearby Personal Area Network (PAN) or Local Area Network (LAN). Therefore, Karaoguz teaches operation of its multi-mode wireless communications device as a switch with two interfaces, one for the LAN and the other for the PAN or Bluetooth network. Ans. 10. Further, Appellant’s arguments in the Reply Brief are not persuasive. For example, Appellant argues that Karaoguz is a telephone, and that “[n]o evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the telephone of Karaoguz is a switch that selectively allocates communication between an information handling system and plural peripherals.” Reply Br. 1. We disagree, and note that Karaoguz teaches: [T]he invention relates to systems and methods for implementing multi-mode wireless communication devices such as PDAs or multi-function (e.g. data, voice, and multimedia) mobile phones that best take advantage of the wireless networks in their proximity. That is, in the case where a nearby wireless network (WAN, LAN, or PAN) happens to provide more data bandwidth and/or better quality of service (QoS), a multi-mode wireless device may switch to that particular wireless network to access these services. Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 8 Karaoguz ¶ [0009]. Thus, we find that Appellant has mischaracterized the teachings of Karaoguz, such that Appellant’s arguments against the Karaoguz reference alone are not persuasive. We specifically note that Appellant’s challenge to the Karaoguz reference individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner’s position because all of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). We agree with the Examiner’s findings that “it would have been obvious to . . . modify Lin by incorporating a switch which is enclosed in a separate housing to allocate communication between the wireless networks as disclosed by . . . Karaoguz . . . [and that t]he motivation . . . would be to switch to the different wireless network to provide better data bandwidth and quality of service.” Ans. 4 (citing Karaoguz ¶ [0009]). Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 9 As Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to the rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3 or even addressed these claims, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under the same rejection as claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In addition, Appellant has not provided separate arguments nor has he addressed the additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lin and Karaoguz in view of various combinations with McCorkle and D’Souza, such that we also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4-9. 2. Rejection of Claims 10-16 Issue 2 Appellant argues (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1-2) that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) over Karaoguz is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed information handling system networking switch is anticipated by Karaoguz, particularly that Karaoguz discloses, inter alia, “a task allocation module interfaced with the wireless local area network module and the wireless personal area network, the task allocation module operable to selectively communicate information between an information handling system and plural peripherals over the first or second band based on one or more factors,” as recited in claim 10? Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Karaoguz discloses “a task allocation module interfaced with the wireless local area network module and the wireless personal area network, the task allocation module operable Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 10 to selectively communicate information between an information handling system and plural peripherals over the first or second band based on one or more factors,” as recited in claim 10. Ans. 7-8 and 11. Appellant contends that “Karaoguz fails to teach, disclose or suggest ‘selectively communicate information between an information handling system and plural peripherals over the first or second band based on one or more factors’ as recited by Claim 10 . . . [and that] Karaoguz’s gateway communicates only over a HomeRF band.” App. Br. 10. We disagree with Appellant’s contention, and agree with the Examiner’s findings in this regard. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Karaoguz discloses that “the multi-mode wireless communication can communicate between devices that are on the LAN network or the PAN network . . . similar to the function of . . . Appellant’s argued information handling system networking switch . . . [and f]or these reasons, the Karaoguz reference does disclose the limitations of the claim.” Ans. 11. Further, Appellant’s arguments that “[t]he telephone disclosed by Karaoguz is not a switch that selectively communicates information ‘between an information handling system and plural peripherals’ as recited by Claim 10 . . . [and t]he Examiner’s rejection . . . indicates that the telephone that was a switch for the rejection of Claim 1 is an information handling system for Claim 10,” are not persuasive. Reply Br. 1. Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 11 While Karaoguz’s invention may involve mobile telephony, the reference is directed more generally to a multi-mode controller and associated techniques, as evidenced by its Abstract: Techniques for controlling and managing network access are used to enable a wireless communication device to selectively communicate with several wireless networks. A portable communication device constructed according to the invention can communicate with different networks as the device is moved through the areas of coverage supported by the different networks. As a result, the device can take advantage of services provided by a particular network when the device is within the area of coverage provided by that network. Thus, the device can selectively switch to networks that provide, for example, high speed Internet access, different quality of service, low cost service and/or different services (e.g., voice, data, multimedia, etc.). A multi-mode controller in the device may be used to alternately poll different networks to determine whether the device is within the area of coverage of a network and to selectively establish communications with those networks. Karaoguz Abstract. We agree with the Examiner and find that the disclosure of Karaoguz discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 10. As Appellant has not provided separate arguments or even addressed the rejections of dependent claims 11-16, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s various rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 12 3. Rejection of Claims 17-20 Issue 3 Appellant argues (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Karaoguz is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Appellant’s claimed method for communicating information between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals is anticipated by Karaoguz, particularly that Karaoguz discloses, inter alia, “allocating the local area network information to the first wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals; and allocating the personal area network information to the second wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals,” as recited in claim 17? Analysis We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Karaoguz discloses “allocating the local area network information to the first wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals; and allocating the personal area network information to the second wireless transceiver for communication between one or more information handling systems and one or more peripherals,” as recited in claim 17. Ans. 9 and 11-12. Appellant essentially argues that “Karaoguz cannot anticipate Claim 17 because Karaoguz fails to teach, disclose or suggest all elements recited Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 13 by Claim 17,” and then go on to quote limitations from claim 17, without responding to the Examiner’s specific findings. App. Br. 5. Appellant recites portions of the claim limitations and contend that the reference does not teach the limitations. Id. Such statements are not considered to be arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Thus, we do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. Accordingly, Appellant has not convinced us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 17. As Appellant has not provided separate arguments with respect to dependent claims 18-20, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err with respect to the various unpatentability rejections of claims 1-9, 12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the prior art of record, and the rejection is sustained. Appeal 2010-007083 Application 10/890,014 14 (2) The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and the rejection is sustained. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 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) (2011). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation