Ex Parte Rek

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2005

09749713 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2005)

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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 LEO REK
___________
Appeal No. 2005-1638
Application No. 09/749,713
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, RUGGIERO, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection of
claims 6-19. Claims 1-5 have been canceled.
The disclosed invention relates to an information transmission
system and method in which a telecommunications device exchanges
information with two dissimilar transmission assemblies such as a
DECT (Digital European Cordless Telephone System) base station and
a “Bluetooth” computer terminal. The information exchange utilizes
a TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access) system in which, according
to Appellant (specification, page 1), the short transmission period
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
1 The Appeal Brief was filed November 24, 2004. In response to the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 14, 2005, a Reply Brief was filed May 16, 2005,
which was acknowledged and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the
communication dated June 3, 2005.
2
relative to the longer rest period enables the transmission of
information to the second of the two dissimilar transmission
assemblies during the rest periods.
Claim 6 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
6. An information transmission system, comprising:
at least two dissimilar transmission assemblies; and

a telecommunications device operable in accordance with a
fixed time division multiple access to exchange information pulses
with the at least two dissimilar transmission assemblies.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Bell 6,445,921 Sep. 03, 2002
(filed Dec. 20, 1999)
Claims 6-19, all of the appealed claims, stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bell.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
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
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
3
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments set
forth in the Briefs 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 Bell reference does not fully meet the invention as set
forth in claims 6-19. Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset, we note that anticipation is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of indecency, 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, 1554,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
With respect to the appealed independent claims 6, 11, and 15,
the Examiner attempts to read the various limitations on the
disclosure of Bell. In particular, the Examiner points to the
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
4
illustrations in Figure 1 of Bell along with the accompanying
description at column 2, lines 33-44 of Bell.
Appellant’s arguments in response assert a failure of Bell to
disclose every limitation in independent claims 6, 11, and 15 as is
required to support a rejection based on anticipation. Appellant’s
assertions focus on the contention that, in contrast to the claimed
invention, Bell does not disclose a telecommunications device which
exchanges information with at least two dissimilar transmission
assemblies and operates in accordance with a fixed time division
multiple access (TDMA) system. According to Appellant (Brief,
pages 12 and 13; Reply Brief, pages 11 and 12), the Bell reference,
while admittedly disclosing information exchange between a
telecommunications device 110 and a cellular network 130, i.e., a
first transmission assembly, utilizing a TDMA scheme, has no
disclosure of an information exchange between telecommunications
device 110 and cordless base station 150, i.e., a second dissimilar
transmission assembly, utilizing such a TDMA system as claimed.
After reviewing the Bell reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s position as
expressed in the Briefs. Although the Examiner directs attention
(Answer, page 5) to the portion of Bell (column 2, lines 42-44)
which states “[i]t is understood ... that the handset 110 and
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
5
communication system 100 can include any two modes or services” as
supporting the Examiner’s assertion that information exchange in
Bell between the handset 110 and both the cellular network 130 and
cordless base station 150 utilizes a TDMA scheme, we do not find
this persuasive.
In our view, the immediately preceding sentence at column 2,
lines 38-41 of Bell makes it abundantly clear which transmission
schemes can be used for each of the cellular and cordless modes.
According to Bell, the “PCS/Cellular systems may be AMPS, GSM,
TDMA, or CDMA,” while the “cordless system may be DECT, FM, spread
spectrum, or the Bluetooth telephony profile.” Given this express
prescription as to which transmission schemes can be used for each
of the cellular and cordless modes, we find that Bell’s disclosure
that “any two modes or services” can be used can only be reasonably
interpreted as meaning that any one of the schemes contemplated for
each mode can be selected to constitute the two transmission modes
for the dual mode handset. In other words, while any two
transmission schemes can be selected, the TDMA scheme is disclosed
as being limited to an association with the cellular transmission
mode.
Lending further support to this interpretation of Bell is the
description in Bell of event-driven handover of communication
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
6
between cellular and cordless modes. As also pointed out by
Appellant (Brief, page 13), the Bell reference, in contrast to the
claimed invention in which information exchange between a
telecommunications device and two modes or systems operates in
accordance with “a fixed time division multiple access” system, the
information exchange involving the two transmission modes in Bell
takes place in a random, event-driven fashion. For example, the
illustrations in Figures 3-5 of Bell indicate that the transfer of
communication between transmission modes, rather than occurring in
fixed time slots, takes place when certain random events occur such
as failure in one mode due to dropped calls or upon user-initiated
transfer (e.g., cheaper service available).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Bell, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
7
claims 6, 11, and 15, nor of claims 7-10, 12-14, and 16-19
dependent thereon. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 6-19 is reversed.
REVERSED

LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/dal
Appeal No. 2005-1637
Application No. 09/749,713
8
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510