Ex parte Raith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 9, 2000

08467876 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 9, 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not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ALEX K. RAITH
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876
___________
ON BRIEF

Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15, 47, 48 and 54-
62, which constitute all the claims remaining in the
application. The disclosed invention pertains to
the field of conserving battery power in mobile units of a
radiocommunication system. More particularly, the invention
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

2
controls the repeat period for which a mobile unit listens for
paging messages. The system transmits a signal to the mobile
unit commanding the mobile unit to either use its currently
assigned repeat period or to use a different repeat period.
Representative claim 13 is reproduced as follows:
13. A method for commanding a remote station to listen
for pages in a radiocommunication system comprising the steps
of:
providing a plurality of paging frame classes, each
class having a different repeat period for listening for
paging messages;
assigning one of said plurality of paging frame
classes to said remote station when said remote station
registers with said system; and
transmitting, from said system, a paging frame modifier
which commands said mobile to either use said assigned paging
frame class or to use a different paging frame class.

The examiner relies on the following reference:
Tayloe et al. (Tayloe) 5,373,506 Dec. 13, 1994
(effective filing date of Nov. 26,
1990)
Claims 13-15, 47, 48 and 54-62 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Tayloe. Appellant and the examiner have both recognized that
dependent claims 60-62 improperly depend from claim 60 rather
than claim 59. For purposes of deciding this appeal, we treat
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

3
claims 60-62 as each depending from independent claim 59.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

4
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the disclosure of Tayloe does fully meet the
invention as set forth in claims 13-15, 47, 48 and 54-62.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior
art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

5
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads each of
independent claims 13, 54 and 59 on the disclosure of Tayloe
[answer, pages 4-5]. With respect to these independent
claims, appellant argues that Tayloe only sets paging frame
classes at registration. According to appellant, Tayloe does
not teach or suggest modifying the paging frame class once it
has been assigned by way of a message which is transmitted
from the radiocommunication system [brief, pages 5-6].
Because of this distinction, appellant argues that Tayloe
fails to disclose the final limitation in each of claims 13,
54 and 59. The examiner responds that the “DRX factor” in
Tayloe is a paging repeat factor which meets the recitations
of the claims [answer, pages 5-7].
After a careful consideration of the record in this
case and in view of the scope of the independent claims, we
agree with the conclusion reached by the examiner. Although
Tayloe only specifically discloses providing wake-up interval
information to a mobile unit as part of the registration
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

6
process [column 3, lines 8-12], we agree with the examiner
that the disclosure as a whole suggests that this wake-up
information is continually adjusted and transmitted to each
mobile unit as conditions warrant. In other words, the
artisan would have understood from the Tayloe disclosure that
DRX information is also transmitted to mobile units after
registration has occurred. Otherwise, a substantial number of
mobile units would be unaffected by the traffic considerations
which are so important in Tayloe. Such a reading of Tayloe
seems inappropriate to this panel. Thus, we find that the
disclosure of Tayloe, as understood by the artisan, meets the
claim recitations of transmitting page frame modifiers from
the system to the mobile units to maintain a current assigned
page class or to establish a new assigned page class.
Even if appellant’s argument that Tayloe sets wake-up
information only at initial registration is correct, we are
still of the view that the invention of independent claims 13,
54 and 59 would be met by the operation of Tayloe’s system.
Specifically, we view these claims as broad enough to be met
by the page frame update in Tayloe which would occur every
time a given mobile unit leaves one paging area 100 and enters
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

7
a new paging area 100. That is, the radiocommunication system
in Tayloe, including all the paging areas 100 [Figure 1],
transmits wake-up information to a mobile unit at this time
which either maintains the previously assigned page class or
commands the mobile unit to use a new page class. The claims
do not preclude the transmitting step, the transmitter or the
processing unit from making the adjustment as paging areas are
entered. Tayloe would clearly meet this broad statement of
the invention.
Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 13, 54 and 59 as anticipated by the disclosure of
Tayloe. Since dependent claims 14, 15, 55, 56, 60 and 61 are
grouped with one of these independent claims [brief, page 4],
we also sustain the rejection of these claims.
With respect to claims 47 and 57, appellant argues
that these claims are not met by Tayloe because Tayloe fails
to teach or suggest the transmission of any page frame
modifier [brief, page 6]. This argument has already been
decided adversely to appellant. Additionally, the examiner
has explained how he reads these claims on Tayloe [answer,
page 7], and appellant has not provided any rebuttal arguments
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

8
to the examiner’s reading. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 47 and 57.
With respect to claims 48, 58 and 62, appellant argues
that the feature of the unaddressed information element is not
found or alleged to be found in Tayloe [brief, page 6]. The
examiner responds that the DRX factor in Tayloe is sent as
time division multiplexed information which relies on timing
rather than addresses to reach the mobile unit, and therefore,
meets the language of these claims [answer, page 7]. We agree
with the examiner and note that appellant has offered no
rebuttal to this position of the examiner. Therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of these claims.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s
rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 13-
15, 47, 48 and 54-62 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Appeal No. 1998-0666
Application 08/467,876

9
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
STEVEN M. DU BOIS
BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER AND MATHIS
P. O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
JS:caw