10458700 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012)

Ex Parte Rager et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 30, 2012

10458700 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte KENT D. RAGER, NIELS PETER ANDERSEN, and MARCIA J. OTTING ____________ Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20, and 21. Claim 3 has been canceled, and the rejection of claims 9, 13, and 19 has been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to operating a multi-mode wireless communications device. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method in a wireless communications device capable of operating in more than one mode, the method comprising: searching for service in all modes during at least one common search period after attaching to a network; reducing power consumption in the wireless communications device by searching for service in less than all modes during search periods other than the at least one common search period. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Berger Kukkohovi Vestergaard Parker Ansorge US 5,758,263 US 6,119,003 US 2002/0068574 A1 US 6,603,755 B1 US 2005/0064869 A1 May 26, 1998 Sept. 12, 2000 June 6, 2002 Aug. 5, 2003 (filed May 14, 1999) Mar. 24, 2005 (PCT App. filed Dec. Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 3 Jansen Sullivan US 2005/0221846 A1 US 7,046,964 B1 19, 2001) Oct. 6, 2005 (PCT App. filed Apr. 26, 2002) May 16, 2006 (continuation-in-part of App. No. 09/860,506, filed May 21, 2001) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kukkohovi, Berger, and Ansorge. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kukkohovi, Berger, Ansorge, and Vestergaard. Claims 7, 8, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kukkohovi, Berger, and Sullivan. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kukkohovi, Berger, Sullivan, and Vestergaard. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker, Kukkohovi, Berger, and Sullivan. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parker, Kukkohovi, Berger, Sullivan, and Vestergaard. Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kukkohovi, Berger, Sullivan, and Jansen. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ansorge, Vestergaard, and Berger. Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 Regarding independent claim 1, Appellants contend that Berger’s testing of a communication link by scanning handset channels does not disclose “searching for service” because Berger’s base station and handset are already linked when the testing occurs. Appellants also contend that Berger does not disclose “reducing power consumption” in the handset by reducing the number of channels scanned by the base station. Further, Appellants contend that Ansorge fails to disclose searching for service in all modes during a common search period “after attaching to a network,” and “searching for service in less than all modes during search periods other than the at least one common search period.” (Br. 5-6) Appellants’ argument that Berger fails to disclose “searching for service” because the base station and handset are already linked (Br. 5) is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. The limitation “searching for service in all modes” does not preclude searching for service when a link is already established. Rather, claim 1 actually requires searching for service “after attaching to a network.” Further, the plain meaning of “searching for service in all modes” is broad enough to encompass searching for different channels for communication over the same established service connection, as disclosed by Berger (see Ans. 5, 22-23). Each channel in Berger can be considered a different mode through which service may be available (see id.). Therefore, Berger’s scanning of all handset channels for communication between the handset and base station meets the limitation of “searching for service in all modes during at least one common search period” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 5 The remainder of Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection. For example, the Examiner does not rely on Berger to disclose “reducing power consumption,” but rather relies on Ansorge for this feature (see Ans. 5-6, 25- 27). Conversely, the Examiner does not rely on Ansorge to disclose “searching for service in all modes during at least one common search period,” but rather relies on Berger for this feature, as discussed above (see Ans. 5, 22-23). The Examiner also does not rely on Ansorge to disclose searching for service “after attaching to a network” (see Ans. 5-6, 25-26). Rather, the Examiner finds that Kukkohovi discloses this feature (Ans. 4, 26). Appellants present no arguments regarding Kukkohovi’s teachings (see Br. 4-6). For these reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not address the proposed combination of references as presented by the Examiner’s rejection. Finally, Appellants’ assertion that Ansorge fails to disclose “searching for service in less than all modes during search periods other than the at least one common search period” (Br. 4) (see Br. 6) is not persuasive because it merely recites the claim language without providing a specific argument for patentability. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 4, and 5 not separately argued. . Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 6 Claims 7, 8, 16, and 20 Regarding independent claims 7 and 16, Appellants’ contentions regarding Berger are similar to those presented for claim 1 (see Br. 7, 9). Additionally, Appellants contend that Sullivan does not suggest a wireless device scanning for service in first and second modes during search periods subsequent to scanning for service in both the first and second modes during a common search period, the wireless device scanning in not more than one of the first and second modes during each of the subsequent search periods. (Br. 8, 10) Appellants’ arguments regarding Berger are not persuasive for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Specifically, the limitations “scanning for service in both the first and second modes,” as recited in claim 7, and “scanning for service in all modes,” as recited in claim 16, do not preclude scanning handset channels for communication over an existing service connection, as disclosed by Berger (see Ans. 9, 30- 31). Regarding Sullivan, Appellants’ arguments are moot because the Examiner only cites Sullivan for the features of claims 9 and 19 (Ans. 9, 33), the rejection of which has been withdrawn (Ans. 2). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 16, and claims 8 and 20 not separately argued. Claims 11 and 12 Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants contend that Parker does not disclose “alternately scanning the frequencies of the first and second modes during corresponding scanning periods, wherein the wireless Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 7 communications device scans frequencies in not more than one mode during each of the corresponding scanning periods” (Claim 11). Appellants also contend that Parker fails to disclose alternately scanning frequencies while “attached to a network.” (Br. 11) Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s reliance on Sullivan to suggest alternately scanning frequencies is misplaced because Sullivan’s radio scanner does not search for service or attach to a network (Br. 12). Appellants’ arguments regarding Parker (see Br. 11) are not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner admits that Parker does not disclose alternately scanning frequencies after attaching to a network, but relies on Kukkohovi and Sullivan for disclosing these features (Ans. 35-38). Appellants provide no arguments regarding Kukkohovi (see Br. 10-12). Regarding Sullivan, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with either the scope of claim 11, or with the Examiner’s rejection. First, claim 11 does not recite searching for service, as Appellants’ argument suggests (see Br. 12). Second, the Examiner relies on Kukkohovi, not Sullivan, for disclosing attaching to a network (see Ans. 12-13). Sullivan is merely relied on for disclosing alternately scanning radio signal frequencies (Ans. 14), and Appellants do not argue that Sullivan fails to disclose this feature (see Br. 12). Although Appellants assert Sullivan is not relevant to the wireless communication method of claim 11, Appellants do not provide any explanation to support this assertion (see Br. 12). Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, we cannot conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Sullivan’s alternate frequency scanning technique, Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 8 which involves radio, i.e., wireless, signals, irrelevant to the claimed invention. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, and claim 12 not separately argued with particularity. Claim 21 Appellants contend that Ansorge fails to disclose “searching for service in all modes during at least one common search period after changing locations,” and “searching for service in less than all modes during search periods other than the at least one common search period” (Claims 1 and 6), Appellants also contend that Vestergaard fails to disclose “searching for service in less than all modes.” Further, Appellants contend that Berger does not disclose “reducing power consumption” (Br. 12-14) Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner does not rely on Ansorge for “searching for service in all modes . . . after changing locations,” but rather relies on Vestergaard and Berger for this feature (see Ans. 18-19, 41-42). Further, the Examiner does not rely on Vestergaard for “searching for service in less than all modes,” but rather relies on Ansorge for this feature (see Ans. 18-19, 42-43). Additionally, the Examiner does not rely on Berger for “reducing power consumption” (see Ans. 19, 45). Rather, the Examiner cites Ansorge for this feature (Ans. 18, 43-45). For these reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s combination of references. Finally, Appellants’ bare assertion that Ansorge fails to disclose “searching for service in less than all modes during search periods other than Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 9 the at least one common search period” is not supported by any argument (see Br. 13), and is thus unavailing. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21. Claims 6, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 Appellants do not contest the rejections of claims 6, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 (see Br. 4-14). Accordingly, all arguments regarding these claims are waived, and we summarily sustain the rejections thereof. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, [there is] no burden on the Board to consider the merits of that ground of rejection . . . . Rather, the Board may treat any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived. . . . [and] may affirm the rejection . . . without considering the merits of those rejections.”). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20, and 21. Appeal 2010-001636 Application 10/458,700 10 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl