Ex Parte Sutardja

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 8, 2014

11177869 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SEHAT SUTARDJA
____________________

Appeal 2012-007023
Application 11/177,869
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-007023
Application 11/177,869
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3–6, 9–14, 16–19, 22–27, 29–33, 35–37, and 39. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to a dual mode wireless phone system. Claim
1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A wireless handset for a phone system, comprising:

a wireless transceiver module that transmits and receives
first wireless signals with a base station in a first wireless mode
and second wireless signals with the base station in a second
wireless mode, which has a greater range and higher operating
power than the first wireless mode; and

a control module that communicates with the wireless
transceiver module and that switches the handset and the base
station between the first and second wireless modes based on a
predetermined data error rate between the handset and the base
station.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hirsbrunner
Marsh
Karaoguz
US 2004/0264424 A1
US 2004/0266426 A1
US 2005/0147071 A1
Dec. 30, 2004
Dec. 30, 2004
Jul. 7, 2005

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Appeal 2012-007023
Application 11/177,869
3
Claims 1, 3–6, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 22–25, 27, 29–33, 35–37, and 39
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Karaoguz
and Marsh.
Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz, Marsh, and Hirsbrunner.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Karaoguz fails to disclose “A wireless handset for
a phone system, comprising: . . . a control module that communicates with
the wireless transceiver module and that switches the handset and the base
station between the first and second wireless modes,” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 5–7). Specifically, Appellant argues:
FIGS. 12 and 13 and the corresponding description of Karaoguz
do not disclose that the control module of the wireless handset
switches both the handset and the base station between the first
and second wireless mode, as claim 1 recites. Instead,
Karaoguz discloses only that the control module of the handset
switches itself between two modes

(App. Br. 6). We disagree with Appellant.
Karaoguz discloses the following:
It is also noted that each of the various STAs [wireless
handsets] depicted herein may be implemented to be operable
to support simultaneous monitoring of both 802.11 and
802.15.3 beacons with the overall communication system. By
doing this, the switching from a first operational mode (e.g.,
802.11 or 802.15.3) to a second operation mode[] (e.g., the
other of 802.11 or 802.15.3) may be greatly simplified, in that,
the STA already is already in synchronization with each of the
beacons. That is to say, when a switch in operational modes is
to be made, then the STA already is in synchronization with the
beacon of the operational mode to which it will be switching.
In addition, it is noted that the monitoring of the two beacons
Appeal 2012-007023
Application 11/177,869
4
may be performed irrespective of whether the switching from a
first operational mode to a second operational mode is initiated
by one of the APs [base stations] or by the actual STA.

(Karaoguz, ¶ 62) (emphasis added). Here, Karaoguz discloses that the
STA—a “wireless handset”—can initiate a switch from a first to second
operational mode in communication between the STA and a respective
AP—a “base station.” We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7, 18) that this
meets the limitation of a wireless handset control module “that switches the
handset and the base station between the first and second wireless modes,”
as recited in claim 1. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that in order to initiate the switch from first to second modes,
Karaoguz’s STA would have to send some signal to the respective AP
indicating a switch such that both the STA and AP could begin
communicating in the new mode. Absent a specific definition of the claimed
switching functionality recited in claim 1, we are not persuaded that
Karaoguz’s STA initiation of a switch fails to disclose switching both a
wireless handset and a base station by a wireless handset control module.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 3–6, 9–12, 14, 16–19, 22–25, 27, 29–33, 35–37, and 39 not
specifically argued separately. Although Appellant nominally argues claims
13 and 26 separately, Appellant merely adds that Hirsbrunner allegedly fails
to cure the deficiencies of Karaoguz and Marsh (App. Br. 8). However, we
do not find any such deficiencies, as discussed above. Therefore, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 26.

Appeal 2012-007023
Application 11/177,869
5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3–6, 9–14, 16–19, 22–
27, 29–33, 35–37, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–6, 9–
14, 16–19, 22–27, 29–33, 35–37, and 39 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

tj