Ex Parte Song et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 10, 201411962928 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/962,928 12/21/2007 Young Kwang Song 1398-157 (YPF200612-0015) 9066 66547 7590 04/11/2014 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER TRAN, PAUL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/11/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOUNG KWANG SONG, JONG GOO KIM, and JAE KYONG CHOI ____________ Appeal 2012-000503 Application 11/962,928 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-000503 Application 11/962,928 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for controlling radiation power of a mobile terminal having two antennas to support dual mode communication. See Spec. ¶[0002]. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for controlling transmission power of a mobile terminal in a call waiting state, the mobile terminal having two antennas for supporting two different communication networks, the method comprising: receiving a call from a second communication network while communicating with a first communication network; holding a call of the first communication network in a call waiting state in response to input of an acceptance key for receiving the call from the second communication network; and communicating with the second communication network while reducing call transmission power to the first communication network with maintaining the call waiting state for the first communication network. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sindhwani (US 7,496,360 B2; Feb. 24, 2009) and Haub (US 2006/0030356 A1; Feb. 9, 2006). Ans. 5-11. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sindhwani, Haub, and Akiba (US 2006/0223465 A1; Oct. 5, 2006). Ans. 11-12. Appeal 2012-000503 Application 11/962,928 3 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 6, 10, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sindhwani, Haub, and Gilhousen (US 5,265,119; Nov. 23, 1993). Ans. 12-14. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SINDHWANI AND HAUB The Examiner here finds that Sindhwani discloses each limitation of claim 1, except for a mobile terminal with two antennas communicating with the second communication network while reducing call transmission power to the first communication network. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner, however, relies on Haub for these features. On the other hand, the Appellants assert that Sindhwani fails to “reduce a call transmission power to another network while maintaining a state for holding the call of another network” and that Haub does not cure this deficiency. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, Haub only “reduce[s] the transmit power [for] the same network that is activated in the communication device.” App. Br. 5 (citing Haub, ¶ 0030). Additionally, the Appellants argue that the Examiner incorrectly asserts that Haub teaches a non-active network, because Haub simultaneously communicates in multiple networks. Reply Br. 1-2. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Sindhwani and Haub together disclose “communicating with the second communication network while reducing call transmission power to the first communication network with maintaining the call waiting state for the first communication network,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2012-000503 Application 11/962,928 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 Based on this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as obvious by the combination of Sindhwani and Haub. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Sindhwani and Haub together disclose the disputed limitation of claim 1. The Appellants admit that Haub discloses reducing the transmit power to a particular network and then focuses on Haub’s failure to disclose the claimed holding a call in a call waiting state. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2. The Examiner, however, relies on Sindhwani for the call waiting state limitation. See Ans. 5-6; 14-15. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner explains, Sindhwani is directed to a mobile communication device for connecting to multiple networks. Sindhwani, Abstract; see also Ans. 14 (citing Sindhwani, Abstract; Figs. 5-6, 5:38-6:20, 6:39-67). In Sindhwani, this mobile communication device is “capable of communicating with a second communication network while maintaining a call in a call waiting state/mode.” Ans. 14 (citing Sindhwani Fig. 9, reference element 102 and 10:52-67); see also App. Br. 4 (admitting that Sindhwani teaches “the mobile phone will hold a call of another network when the mobile phone communicates with one of the networks.”) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the Sindhwani and Haub together render obvious claim 1, claim 8 which recites similar limitations, Appeal 2012-000503 Application 11/962,928 5 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 14, which are not separately argued. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 15 Appellants here rely on the same arguments for the remaining obviousness rejections as presented for claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. As discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Therefore, based on the record before us, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, and 15 as obvious by the cited prior art and accordingly we sustain the rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 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). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation