Ex Parte Schneider

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2002

08727730 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte ALLAN SCHNEIDER
_____________
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through
3, 8 through 18, 20 through 25, 31 through 33 and 36 through 43.
The disclosed invention relates to a wireless digital
communications system that sends and receives packet data via a
packet switched network (i.e., the Internet).
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
2
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. In a wireless digital communications system
receiving a modulated wireless signal from a digital
telephone, the digital telephone having a subscriber
telephone number and a vocoder for compression of voice
signals to generate digital vocoder voice samples in a
vocoder protocol specifically adapted for the wireless
digital communications system, the modulated wireless signal
carrying an encoded form of the digital vocoder voice
samples as encoded, digital voice samples for a destination
telephone number, a system comprising:
a first wireless transceiver having a demodulator
demodulating the received modulated wireless signal and
outputting a first data stream carrying the encoded, digital
voice samples;
a decoder decoding the encoded, digital voice samples
and in response outputting said digital vocoder voice
samples from the first data stream in said vocoder protocol;
and
a gateway interface sending and receiving packet data
via a packet switched network, the gateway interface having
a packet assembler/disassembler receiving said digital
vocoder voice samples in the vocoder protocol, the packet
assembler/disassembler packetizing the received digital
vocoder voice samples into data packets having a destination
address corresponding to said destination telephone number,
the gateway interface outputting said data packets onto the
packet switched network for reception by a network node
corresponding to said destination address.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Goodman 4,916,691 Apr. 10, 1990
Pohjakallio 5,502,721 Mar. 26, 1996
Glaser et al. (Glaser) 5,793,980 Aug. 11, 1998
(filed Nov. 30, 1994)
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
1 According to the examiner (answer, page 3), this reference
was obtained via the Internet on Feb. 12, 1997.
3
Yang, “INETPhone: Telephone Services and Servers on Internet,”
Request For Comments: 1789 (Univ. of North Texas, Apr. 1995).1
Claims 1 through 3, 14 through 18, 20 through 25, 31 through
33, 36 through 40, 42 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pohjakallio in view of Yang
and Glaser.
Claims 8 through 13 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pohjakallio in view of Yang,
Glaser and Goodman.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 24 and 26)
and the answer (paper number 25) for the respective positions of
the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
3, 8 through 18, 20 through 25, 31 through 33 and 36 through 43.
At the outset, we note that appellant questions whether Yang
is a valid reference since April 1995 is not the only date on the
Internet publication, and because all of the material disclosed
therein may not have been in the Internet publication on the
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
4
indicated date of April 1995 (brief, pages 6 and 7). Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the February 12, 1997
date and the accompanying changing times that appear in the lower
right corner of each page of the Yang publication agree with the
examiner’s statement (answer, page 3) that the publication was
obtained via the Internet on February 12, 1997. In other words,
the noted date and times clearly indicate the date and time each
individual page of the publication was downloaded and printed by
the examiner. In the absence of evidence that proves otherwise,
April 1995 is presumed to be the publication date of all of the
material set forth in the publication. In re Epstein, 32 F.3d
1559, 1567, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1822 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“in the
absence of evidence to support this speculation, we do not find
appellant’s argument persuasive”).
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that the applied references
neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art to interface a wireless voice communication system to
the Internet.
We agree with the examiner (answer, pages 3 and 4) that
Pohjakallio discloses a mobile cellular telephone network that
includes a vocoder 34, that the mobile station “has exactly the
same structure as the telephone shown in Fig. 3 of the instant
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
5
invention,” and that “Pohjakallio does not show a gateway for
receiving and packetizing the low-bit rate voice samples from the
mobile station and outputting the data packets onto a packet
network.” We additionally agree with the examiner (answer, page
4) that “Yang discloses server gateways on the Internet which
packetize voice data so as to transmit the voice data over the
Internet (a packet network) according to the Internet protocols.”
According to the examiner (answer, page 4), “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use server
gateways of Yang in connection with the MSC [mobile exchange]
taught by Pohjakallio to transmit/receive voice over the Internet
with the motivation being to establish a long distance phone
connection via two local phone connections and one Internet
connection; thus avoiding toll offices as explicitly suggested at
page 2 of Yang.”
Although Yang uses a gateway server to connect a standard
telephone network and the Internet, we agree with the appellant’s
argument (brief, page 9) that “[o]nly Applicant’s own claims and
disclosure provide any suggestion or motivation to directly
transmit the actual vocoder samples used in the wireless domain
through a public packet-switched data network, like the
Internet.” Since appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
6
the only source of a teaching for connecting a wireless digital
network to the Internet using the vocoder protocol of the
wireless network, we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
page 9) that the examiner has resorted to impermissible hindsight
to demonstrate the obviousness of the claimed invention. The
IS-54 compression algorithm teachings of Glaser fail to cure the
noted shortcoming in the teachings of Pohjakallio and Yang.
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 14 through
18, 20 through 25, 31 through 33, 36 through 40, 42 and 43 is
reversed.
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
7
The obviousness rejection of claims 8 through 13 and 41 is
reversed because the transcoder teachings of Goodman do not
provide for the deficient teachings of Pohjakallio, Yang and
Glaser.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3,
8 through 18, 20 through 25, 31 through 33 and 36 through 43
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2000-2276
Application No. 08/727,730
8
LEONARD C. SUCHYTA
C/O CHRISTIAN R. ANDERSEN
VERIZON SERVICES GROUP
600 HIDDEN RIDGE DR.
MAIL CODE: HQE03H01
IRVING, TX 75038