Ex Parte Usher et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2009

10069100 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MARTIN P. USHER and ANDREW R. MEAD
________________

Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided: August 24, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN, and BRADLEY
W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
6(b).
We will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and
15, and reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 16.
Appellants have invented a method for facilitating telephone traffic
between a fixed cellular network and a plurality of users in a movable
network aboard a vehicle. In response to a control signal, the method
Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100

2
simultaneously suspends the forwarding of incoming calls to the plurality of
users; however, the suspension of incoming calls does not disconnect a call
in progress between any of the plurality of users and the fixed network (Figs.
1, 19; Spec. 16, 35).
Claim 9 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as follows:
9. A method for facilitating telephone traffic between a fixed cellular
network and a movable network aboard a vehicle, comprising:
configuring a ground-based host node to forward incoming calls from
the fixed cellular network to a plurality of users through the movable
network, and to forward outgoing calls from the plurality of users;
simultaneously suspending, in response to a control signal, forwarding
incoming calls to the plurality of users;
wherein said suspending forwarding incoming calls does not
disconnect a call in progress between any of the plurality of users and the
fixed network.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zicker US 6,314,286 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
McConnell US 6,633,636 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed May 28, 1999)
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Zicker and McConnell.
The Examiner states (Ans. 3 and 4) that Zicker is silent as to
“simultaneously suspending, in response to a control signal, forwarding
incoming calls to the plurality of users; wherein said suspending forwarding
incoming calls does not disconnect a call in progress between any of the
Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100

3
plurality of users and the fixed network.” According to the Examiner (Ans.
4), McConnell teaches the steps found missing in Zicker.
Appellants argue that “the primary Zicker reference does not teach or
suggest any suspension of incoming calls, let alone a simultaneous
suspension of incoming calls” (App. Br. 10), and that the McConnell
reference teaches the suspension of an individual incoming call, and not
incoming calls to a plurality of users (App. Br. 11).
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by finding that the
applied references teach simultaneously suspending the forwarding of
incoming calls to a plurality of users in a movable network in response to a
control signal, and wherein the suspension of the forwarding of incoming
calls does not disconnect a call in progress between any of the plurality of
users and the fixed network?
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Zicker describes a method of facilitating telephone traffic between
a fixed cellular network 22, 24 and a movable network 30 aboard an aircraft
20 (Figs. 1, 2; col. 3, l. 58 to col. 4, l. 27). A ground-based host node 36 is
configured to forward incoming calls from the fixed cellular network 22, 24
to a plurality of users 50 through the movable network 30, and to forward
outgoing calls from the plurality of users 50 (col. 4, ll. 28 to 38; col. 5, ll. 39
to 53).
2. When the movable network aboard the aircraft is placed in a
passive mode by a switching signal, calls to and from all of the users 50 are
simultaneously suspended (col. 11, ll. 20 to 23; col. 12, ll. 43 to 56; col. 13,
ll. 56 to 65).
Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100

4
3. Although switching to the passive mode will normally terminate
communication links to the users 50, an optional operation of the passive
mode in Zicker allows users currently involved in voice communications to
continue voice communication for a predetermined interval of time (col. 14,
ll. 13 to 16).
4. McConnell describes a communication network in which a private
branch exchange (PBX) 12 suspends an incoming call (Fig. 4, step 402; col.
7, ll. 15 to 18), and thereafter rings both a PBX phone as well as a mobile
phone that belong to a customer (Fig. 4, step 412; col. 7, ll. 34 to 36). The
PBX will connect the call to the first phone that the customer answers (Fig.
4, step 414; col. 7, ll. 36 to 38).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Board may sustain a multi-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) by relying on one of the references alone without having to designate
the reliance on less than the total amount of evidence as a new ground of
rejection. In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966); In re Bush, 296
F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 11) that McConnell is
directed to suspending a call to a single user (FF 4), and is not concerned
with the simultaneous suspension of a plurality of incoming calls to a
plurality of users as set forth in claims 9 and 13 on appeal. As indicated
supra (FF 1 to 3), however, Zicker describes all of the limitations of claims
9 and 13. The control signal in Zicker that places the movable network into
the passive mode simultaneously suspends the forwarding of incoming calls
to the plurality of users in the movable network (FF 2), and the suspension
Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100

5
of the forwarding of incoming calls does not disconnect a call in progress in
the optional operation of the passive mode (FF 3).
Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 13 based upon the
teachings of Zicker and McConnell is sustained in view of the teachings of
Zicker1 alone. Boyer, 363 F.2d at 458 n.2; Bush, 296 F.2d at 496.
The obviousness rejection of claims 10, 12, and 15 is likewise
sustained because Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments
for these claims apart from the arguments presented for claims 9 and 13.
Turning lastly to claim 16, we agree with the Appellants’ argument
(App. Br. 12) that the applied references neither teach nor would have
suggested the claimed step of the vehicle sending a control signal
representing a request for the ground-based network to discontinue
forwarding incoming calls to the vehicle. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding
that the applied references teach simultaneously suspending the forwarding
of incoming calls to a plurality of users in a movable network in response to
a control signal, and wherein the suspension of the forwarding of incoming
calls does not disconnect a call in progress between any of the plurality of
users and the fixed network.

1 Although the Examiner made a finding (Ans. 3, 4) that Zicker is silent as to
simultaneously suspending the forwarding of incoming calls to a plurality of
users, and not disconnecting a call in progress as a result of the suspension
of incoming calls, we find that Zicker does in fact teach the claimed
simultaneous suspension of incoming calls, and maintenance of calls in
progress (FF 2, 3).
Appeal 2009-003332
Application 10/069,100

6
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed, and the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

ke

DILLON & YUDELL LLP
8911 N. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HWY.,
SUITE 2110
AUSTIN TX 78759