Ex Parte Saint-Hilaire et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 19, 2007

09826251 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 19, 2007)

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publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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 YLIAN SAINT-HILARIE and JAMES EDWARDS
_____________

Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: September 19, 2007

_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4 through 30. For the reasons stated infra, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251

INVENTION

The invention is directed to a method of using devices in a Bluetooth TM
piconet to communicate with each other over a greater distance. The system
allows the Bluetooth TM devices that are connected to a non-Radio Frequency
network to provide a bridge to another Bluetooth device in another piconet. See
page 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:

enumerating a plurality of devices in a first radio frequency network;

communicating address information about the devices in said first
radio frequency network over a non-radio frequency network to a second
radio frequency network; and

making the address information about the devices in the first radio
frequency network available to devices in said second radio frequency
network.

REFERENCE

The reference relied upon by the Examiner is:

Walley US 2002/0090961 A1 Jul. 11, 2002
(filed Jan. 5, 2001)

2

Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Walley. The Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 3
through 8 of the Answer.
Throughout the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief
(filed September 6, 2006 and December 18, 2006 respectively), and the Answer
(mailed November 21, 2006) for the respective details thereof.

OPINION
Appellants argue, on page 11 of the Brief, that Walley does not teach two
separate networks as recited in the claims.
The Examiner responds on page 8 of the Answer, by finding that Walley
teaches bridging two networks in the embodiment of figure 10, described in
paragraph 65.
In the Reply Brief, on page 2, Appellants admit that Walley in the
embodiment of figure 10 teaches two networks and argue:
Nothing in this reference ever suggests enabling a device in one network to
be initialized into another network by communicating address information
about devices in the first network over a non-radio frequency network to the
second network. The communication suggested in Figure 10 by dotted line
1012, is a radio frequency connection. See paragraph 55. Thus, the cited
reference explicitly teaches away from the claimed invention and for this
further reason, reversal would be appropriate

Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Representative claim 1 recites that there are two radio frequency
networks that communicate address information with each other via a non-radio
frequency network. The Examiner, relying on paragraphs 0035 and 0036 of
3

Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251

Walley, has found that Walley teaches communicating address information about
devices in a first radio frequency network to a second radio frequency network.
(Answer 3.) Appellants do not contest this finding. Further, we note that the hand-
off procedure to share resources discussed in paragraphs 0030, 0031, and 0055 of
Walley also discuss transferring, between base stations, address information of
resources. Walley teaches that the method of sharing resources within a network
can be extended to sharing resources between two networks, i.e. base stations in
networks 1000 and 1020 sharing resources. Figure 10, Paragraph 0055 and 0056.
Walley teaches that the base station to base station communication links (shown as
items 108 and 110 in figure 1) are via Radio Frequency (RF) links using the
Bluetooth TM specification. Paragraphs 0028 and 0054. Alternatively, Walley
teaches that the links can be wired links such as power line home network links (a
non-RF link). (Paragraphs 0028 and 0042.) Thus, we find ample evidence to
support the Examiner’s finding that Walley discloses “communicating address
information about the devices in said first radio frequency network over a non-
radio frequency network to a second radio frequency network” as recited in
independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments directed to the other
claims on appeal. Accordingly, we group claims 2 and 4 through 30 with claim 1,
and similarly affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4 through 30.

4

Appeal 2007-1826
Application 09/826,251

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner 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) (2006).

AFFIRMED

pgc

TROP PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631

5