Ex Parte Takamura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11670282 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KAZUHISA TAKAMURA and MASATAKA WAKAMATSU

____________

Appeal 2012-000004
Application 11/670,282
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES,
and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000004
Application 11/670,282

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a communication
management unit 16 which recognizes a selected application program (i.e.,
telephone, web access, e-mail transmission/reception) and selects either a
cellular interface or a wireless local area network interface to transport and
receive data based on stored priority information (i.e., see Fig. 2, Table 17).
See Figs.1& 2 and Spec. ¶¶ [0042]-[0044].
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A portable information terminal comprising:
a cellular interface;
a wireless local area network interface; and
a controller unit configured to select one of the cellular
interface and the wireless local area network interface to
transmit and receive data in response to a request received from
at least one of a plurality of applications based on stored
priority information specific to the at least one of the plurality
of applications between the cellular interface and the wireless
local area network interface when both of the cellular interface
and the wireless local area network interface are usable by the
at least one of the plurality of applications generating said
request.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Sumner (US 2003/0142641 A1, Jul. 31, 2003).
Appeal 2012-000004
Application 11/670,282

3
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Sumner
teaches the limitation of:
a controller unit configured to select one of the cellular
interface and the wireless local area network interface to
transmit and receive data in response to a request received from
at least one of a plurality of applications based on stored
priority information specific to the at least one of the plurality
of applications between the cellular interface and the wireless
local area network interface
as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Sumner does not teach the limitation
of
a controller unit configured to select one of the cellular
interface and the wireless local area network interface to
transmit and receive data in response to a request received from
at least one of a plurality of applications based on stored
priority information specific to the at least one of the plurality
of applications between the cellular interface and the wireless
local area network interface
as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7). More particularly, Appellants argue that
Sumner does not disclose a controller that consults stored priority
information specific to an application in order to select an interface used to
transmit and receive data in response to a request received from the
application (App. Br. 7).
We agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner
that Sumner discloses one application that has priority information (i.e.,
“usage charges”) that determines whether to select a Wireless Local Area
Appeal 2012-000004
Application 11/670,282

4
Network (WLAN) or Wireless Wide Area Network (WWAN) based on the
usage charges response (Ans. 10; Sumner, ¶ [0013]). However, in Sumner it
is the user that selects the type of interface (¶ [0034])—not the “controller
unit” as required by claim 1.
Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reason the rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Sumner teaches the limitation of:
a controller unit configured to select one of the cellular
interface and the wireless local area network interface to
transmit and receive data in response to a request received from
at least one of a plurality of applications based on stored
priority information specific to the at least one of the plurality
of applications between the cellular interface and the wireless
local area network interface
as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 10 is
reversed.

REVERSED

msc