Ex Parte Tanaka et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201310671804 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013) 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. 10/671,804 09/29/2003 Shingo Tanaka 02887.0250 9918 22852 7590 12/19/2013 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER ALI, FARHAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2478 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2013 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 SHINGO TANAKA, MASATAKA GOTO and NAOKI ESAKA ____________ Appeal 2011-006407 Application 10/671,804 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006407 Application 10/671,804 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–8 and 11–20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to a master communication device, a slave communication device, a communication control apparatus, a communication system, and a communication control program used in the communication system, in which the master communication device can communicate with a plurality of slave communication devices at the same time. Spec. 1; see also Abs. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (disputed limitations in italics): 1. A master communication device capable of simultaneously communicating with slave communication devices within a first limited number determined in advance, comprising: a communication judgment unit configured to judge whether or not one of said slave communication devices which has issued a communication request is currently connected; a communication connection unit configured to connect said slave communication device judged not to be connected by said communication judgment unit; a connected number judgment unit configured to judge whether or not the number of said slave communication devices connected currently reaches a second limited number less than said first limited number; a release selection unit configured to select at least one of said slave communication devices to be 1 Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Appeal 2011-006407 Application 10/671,804 3 released, when determined to have reached said second limited number; and a communication release unit configured to release the selected slave communication device. Rejection Claims 1–8 and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 6,366,622 B1, Apr. 2, 2002), Fujioka (U.S. Pat. No. 6,907,227 B2, Jun. 14, 2005) and Lee (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0090968 A1, Jul. 11, 2002). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Brown, Fujioka and Lee teaches or suggests “a connected number judgment unit configured to judge whether or not the number of said slave communication devices connected currently reaches a second limited number less than said first limited number,” and “a release selection unit configured to select at least one of said slave communication devices to be released, when determined to have reached said second limited number,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 13 and 17? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ assertion that Fujioka and Lee individually do not teach or suggest “‘a connected number judgment unit configured to judge whether or not the number of said slave communication Appeal 2011-006407 Application 10/671,804 4 devices connected currently reaches a second limited number less than said first limited number,’” and “‘a release selection unit configured to select at least one of said slave communication devices to be released, when determined to have reached said second limited number.’” App. Br. 14–15. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. We further note that, contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Fujioka teaches or suggests judging whether or not the number of slave communication devices connected currently reaches a second limited number (seven) less than the first limited number (eight) (Fig. 7: steps S3, S4; col. 11, ll. 47–52), and thereafter selecting at least one of the slave communication devices to be released (i.e., put in park mode) when determined to have reached the second limited number (seven) (Fig. 7: step S5; col. 11, ll. 52-54). For these reasons, we sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1–8 and 11–20 as being unpatentable over Brown, Fujioka and Lee. In the Event of Further Prosecution In the event of further prosecution, we direct attention to independent claim 17 that recites: [a] computer readable medium comprising a computer program code . . . .” The Appellants’ Specification discloses: The communication system described in the above embodiments may be composed of hardware, or software. When the communication system is composed of software, a program for realizing the function of the communication system may be stored in a recording medium such as a floppy disk or a CD-ROM, to be read into a computer and executed. The recording medium is not limited to a portable medium such as a magnetic disk and an optical disk, but may be a fixed recording medium such as a hard disk drive and a memory. A program for realizing the function of the communication system may be distributed via a communication Appeal 2011-006407 Application 10/671,804 5 line (including wireless communication) such as Internet. Moreover, the program may be encoded, modulated or compressed, and distributed via a wire circuit or a radio link such as Internet or distributed by storing in a recording medium. Spec. 18, ll. 5–20 (emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable medium” in light of the Appellants’ Specification includes transitory propagating signals, such as radio link signals that transmit or carry the computer program code. Transitory, propagating signals are not patentable subject matter under § 101. In re Nuitjen, 500 F.3d 1346, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). DECISION We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1–8 and 11–20. TIME PERIOD 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 msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation