Ex Parte Tomoike

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 25, 2009

10058805 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 25, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIROYUKI TOMOIKE
____________

Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: November 25, 2009
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARK S. HOFF
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 7.
We will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 to 7.
Appellant has invented a mobile communication system and method
in which a plurality of mobile stations are capable of simultaneously
participating in communication with a portable information terminal unit,
Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805

2
and the portable information terminal unit is adapted to download or upload
data from or to a content server through the plurality of mobile stations, and
wherein the data is divided into a plurality of pieces and each of the plurality
of mobile stations uploads or downloads only a portion of the plurality of
pieces of the data (Fig. 1; Spec. 4 to 7, 16 to 18; Abstract).
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A mobile communication system, comprising:
a portable information terminal unit;
a plurality of mobile stations capable of participating simultaneously
in communication with said portable information terminal unit;
a packet mobile switching center which is adapted to communicate
with said plurality of mobile stations through a radio access network;
a packet mobile gateway switching center which is adapted to
communicate with said packet mobile switching center through a mobile
data network; and
a content server which is adapted to communicate with said packet
mobile gateway switching center through the Internet;
wherein said portable information terminal unit is adapted to
download or upload data from or to said content server through the plurality
of mobile stations, wherein the data is divided into a plurality of pieces and
each of the plurality of mobile stations uploads or downloads only a portion
of the plurality of pieces of the data.

Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805

3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chern US 6,381,465 B1 Apr. 30, 2002
(filed Sep. 20, 1999)
Martin US 6,610,105 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
(filed May 22 2000)
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Martin and Chern.
According to the Examiner (Final Rej. 2, 3), Martin describes all of
the claimed mobile communication system and method except for explicitly
disclosing that a plurality of mobile stations and a portable information unit
“is adapted to download or upload data from or to said content server
through the plurality of mobile stations, wherein the data is divided into a
plurality of pieces and each of the plurality of mobile stations uploads or
downloads only a portion of the plurality of pieces of the data.” Based upon
the mobile station and network teachings of Chern, the Examiner is of the
opinion (Final Rej. 4) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the mobile communication system and method of
Martin with the teachings of Chern.
Appellant argues inter alia that Martin and Chern fail to teach or
suggest a plurality of mobile stations capable of participating simultaneously
in communication with a portable information terminal unit (App. Br. 10,
and that “Martin and Chern also fail [to] teach or even suggest, at least a
‘portable information terminal unit adapted to download or upload data from
or to said content server through the plurality of mobile stations, wherein
the data is divided into a plurality of pieces and each of the plurality of
Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805

4
mobile stations uploads or downloads only a portion of the plurality of
pieces of data’” (App. Br. 12).

ISSUE
Has Appellant demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied references teach or would have suggested a mobile
communication system or method in which a plurality of mobile stations are
capable of participating simultaneously in communication with a portable
information terminal unit, and in which data is divided into a plurality of
pieces and each of the plurality of mobile stations uploads or downloads
only a portion of the plurality of pieces of the data?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Martin describes a mobile device 106 that accesses network servers
104-1 to 104-m or a PC 110 via wireless airnet 102 and wired landnet 100.
The airnet 102 is capable of communicating simultaneously with a plurality
of mobile devices 106 (Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2A; col. 4, l. 52 to col. 5, l. 50; col.
6, ll. 39 to 44). A server 114 serves as an interface between the two different
networks.
2. Chern describes a system and method for attaching an
advertisement to a Short Message Service (SMS) alert message sent to a
wireless device 130 if there is sufficient space in the SMS message for the
advertisement (Fig. 2; col. 5, ll. 41 to 58; col. 13, ll. 12 to 23; Abstract).

Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805

5
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellant that the mobile device access system of
Martin (FF 1) and the attachment of an advertisement to a SMS message as
in Chern (FF 2) fail to teach or suggest the claimed plurality of mobile
stations that are capable of participating simultaneously in communication
with the portable information terminal unit, and the claimed division of data
into a plurality of pieces with each of the plurality of mobile stations
uploading or downloading only a portion of the plurality of pieces of the
data. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 7 is reversed because
the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection does not possess a
rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. Kahn,
441 F.3d at 988.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that
the applied references teach or suggest a mobile communication system or
method in which a plurality of mobile stations are capable of participating
simultaneously in communication with the portable information terminal
unit, and in which data is divided into a plurality of pieces and each of the
Appeal 2009-006329
Application 10/058,805

6
plurality of mobile stations uploads or downloads only a portion of the
plurality of pieces of the data.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037