Ex Parte Raghavan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2009

10628660 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAMABADRAN S. RAGHAVAN and VIVEK KANSAL
____________

Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: December 31, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-22, 24, and 25. Claim 23 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a wireless communications system
that includes a transceiver unit having a communications interface to
facilitate communication between the transceiver and an access network unit
over an undedicated public network. (Spec. 6:10-13.)
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A transceiver unit for use with a wireless communications
system, the transceiver unit comprising:
an antenna configured to receive a wireless transmission from a
mobile device; and
a communication interface, coupled to the antenna, and
configured to facilitate communication between the transceiver and an
access network unit over an undedicated public network, wherein the
communication between the transceiver and the access network unit is
independent of a dedicated connection.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims:
Ketonen US 6,104,917 Aug. 15, 2000
Hata US 2002/0098845 A1 Jul. 25, 2002
Kowalski US 6,631,410 B1 Oct. 7, 2003
(filed Mar. 16, 2000)
Chen US 2003/0211859 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
(filed May 8, 2002)
Onweller US 6,931,102 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
(filed Aug. 15, 2002)
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

3
Carl G. Eilers & Gary Sgrignoli, Reradiation (Echo) Analysis of a
Tapered Tower Section Supporting a Side-Mounted DTV Broadcast
Antenna and the Corresponding Azimuth Pattern, 47 IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON BROADCASTING 249 (2001).
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 17-21, 24, and 25 stand rejected as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen in view of Hata.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen, Hata, and Kowalski.
Claims 12-14 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen, Hata, and Eilers.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen, Hata, and Ketonen.
Claim 22 stands rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen, Hata, and Onweller.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the
Briefs and the Answer1 for the respective positions of Appellants and the
Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s
position that under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the combination of Chen and Hata
teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Specifically, Appellants and
the Examiner disagree as to whether the combination discloses a transceiver
having a communication interface configured to facilitate communication

1 We refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 4, 2007, the Reply Brief
filed March 28, 2008, and the Answer mailed January 23, 2008.
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

4
between the transceiver and an access network unit that is independent of a
dedicated connection.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants describe the claimed “access network unit” as
follows:
In this embodiment, the access network unit 12 includes an
access network controller 18 and a transceiver server 20. The
access network controller 18 provides the call processing and
control functions of the access network unit 12, and the
transceiver server provides the server functionality to identify
the correct transceiver unit 14 and to provide connectivity to
the various distributed transceiver units 14 via the public
network 16. Indeed, both the transceiver server 20 and the
transceiver unit 14 possess the capability to meet the
connectivity requirements to route information, i.e., voice
and/or data, via the public network 16. Examples of protocol
used for such connectivity are described below in reference to
Fig. 3.
(Spec. 8:22–9:6 (emphases added).)
Whereas a single access network unit 12 may support
multiple technologies, e.g., TDMA, CDMA, and GSM, a
separate transceiver unit 14A-E may be dedicated for each
technology supported by the access network unit 12. In this
example, the access network controller 18 contained within the
access network unit 12 may provide a common platform to
support these multiple technologies. The transceiver server 20
in the access network unit 12 may route the different
technologies to the correct transceiver unit 14A-E using the
public network 16 as the distribution media.
(Spec. 10:1-7.)
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

5
2. Chen relates to multicasting media to a group of target
communication devices in a wireless communication network. (Abstract; ¶
[0006].)
3. As depicted in Figure 1 of Chen, each communication device
registers its IP address with the group call server 102 and may have IP
connectivity to the server 102 through the Internet Protocol (IP) network
108. (¶ [0019].)
3. Chen also discloses that the base station 204 may receive
registration information and status information from the mobile station 206.
(¶ [0025].)
4. As shown in Figure 3 of Chen, a group call server 308 allows
interaction between a user with a group of other users. (¶¶ [0028]-[0029].)
5. Hata relates to mobile communication devices coupled to an
external device having a short-distance wireless communication function
and a server on a network. (¶ [0002].)
6. As shown in Figure 1 of Hata, mobile terminal 101 is coupled
to a server 102 and a cash register 103 as parts of a single service-providing
entity via a wireless base station 104 and the Internet (¶ [0040]) or via
another type of network such as intranet (¶ [0041]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of Claims
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation “‘consistent with the specification.’” In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

6
ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Furthermore, the specification is
the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term. Id. at 1315.
2. Obviousness
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claims 1, 17, and 20, the Examiner
characterizes (Ans. 3) the base station 204 of Chen as the claimed
transceiver unit and asserts (id. at 4) that the claimed communication
between the transceiver and an access network unit is met by Chen’s group
call server 102. The Examiner further relies (id.) on the server 102 in Hata
to meet the claimed access network unit communicating with the transceiver
unit, shown as the base station 104 in Hata, via a network that is independent
of a dedicated connection. The Examiner concludes (id.) that the
combination of Chen and Hata would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art because the combination provides “the benefit of providing a
means for a mobile device to exchange data with a server.”
We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of the server 102 in
Hata as the access network unit, recited in claims 1 and 20, or as containing
the software program for facilitating communication, recited in claim 17. As
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

7
asserted by Appellants (App. Br. 14-15), the server 102 in Hata is clearly
identified as a server that provides normal server functions (FFs 5-6), not the
call processing and control functions required by the claimed access network
unit or the related software (FF 1). The only function identified in Hata for
server 102 is communication with the mobile device in connection with the
cash register 103 (FF 6).
We also agree with Appellants (App. Br. 15) that the wireless base
station 104 of Hata is not the same as the claimed transceiver. Contrary to
the Examiner’s assertion that Hata is relied on to show the functionality of
an undedicated network connection between a transceiver unit and an access
network unit or server (Ans. 15), we observe that the elements identified in
Hata do not represent a transceiver and an access network unit. As argued
by Appellants (Reply Br. 4), the server 102 in Hata is “an end point and
originator of data” and is not involved in any call processing or control
functions. Similarly, we agree with Appellants (id. at 6) that the
communication between the base station 104 and the mobile terminal 101 in
Hata cannot meet the claimed requirement because such communication is
over a wireless communication link which cannot be considered the same as
being “independent of a dedicated connection.”
Giving the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification to the claim term without importing limitations, we find the
Examiner’s reading of the claimed access network unit or the software for
facilitating communication on the server 102 of Hata to be unreasonable.
While Chen describes a group of devices interacting with the group call
server 308 (FFs 2-4), the Examiner has pointed to no teaching in Chen that
would suggest any connection other than a dedicated one. In fact, the
Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

8
Examiner has not explained why communication between such a server and
the mobile device 101 via the base station 104 may be applied to
communication between a transceiver and an access network unit, as
claimed, or to the communication between the base station 204 and the
group call server 102 in Chen.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that, since Hata does not provide
a transceiver having a communication interface configured to facilitate
communication between the transceiver and an access network unit, or a
base station and a controller, that is independent of a dedicated connection,
the proposed combination fails to render obvious claims 1, 17, and 20, as
well as claims 2-5, 8-11, 18, 19, 21, 24, and 25, dependent thereon. We also
agree with Appellants’ arguments regarding the remaining claims (App. Br.
18-21), that the other applied references provide no teachings to cure the
deficiencies of the Chen/Hata combination as discussed above. Therefore,
in view of our analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-22,
24, and 25 cannot be sustained.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-003131
Application 10/628,660

9

babc

FLETCHER YODER (LUCENT)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77069