Ex Parte Vimpari

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 3, 2004

08861213 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 3, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MARKKU VIMPARI
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRY, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 18-35, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
1 The Examiner’s Answer erroneously refers to Åkerberg as U.S. Patent 5,748,610. U.S. Patent
5,748,610 issued to Bustamente et al., and was applied as a reference in an earlier rejection.
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to method and apparatus for controlling a data transfer
operation between terminal equipment and base stations in wireless local loop (WLL)
systems. Claim 18 is reproduced below.
18. A method for forming a connection between a WLL (Wireless Local
Loop) data transfer system and a subscriber station, wherein
the subscriber station is one of at least two subscriber stations connected
to a terminal equipment, and
a radio connection is formed between the terminal equipment and the
data transfer system for said connection,
and wherein
subscriber station information concerning the subscriber stations
connected to the terminal equipment is stored, and
a data transfer procedure of the radio connection between the terminal
equipment and the data transfer system is selected on the basis of said
subscriber station information.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Åkerberg et al. (Åkerberg)1 5,533,027 Jul. 2, 1996
(filed Aug. 28, 1995)
Vucetic et al. (Vucetic) 5,819,177 Oct. 6, 1998
(filed Mar. 20, 1996)
Claims 18-23 and 26-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Vucetic.
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-3-
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Vucetic and Åkerberg.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn after entry of an
amendment after the final rejection.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 6) and the Examiner’s Answer (Paper
No. 13) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No. 12) and
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
OPINION
Grouping of Claims
Based on arguments presented, we select claims 18, 19, and 24 as
representative. We select the claims based on the arguments, rather than the
groupings alleged at page 5 of the Brief. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). See also In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief
fails to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)], the Board is free to select a
single claim from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection
based solely on the selected representative claim.”).
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-4-
Section 102 rejection of claims 18-23 and 26-35
Appellant traverses the rejection of claims 18-23 and 26-35 as being anticipated
by Vucetic. The rejection reads the “subscriber station information” on the dialing rule
database described by the reference. According to appellant, however, Vucetic fails to
show a data transfer procedure of the radio connection between the terminal equipment
and the data transfer system being selected on the basis of the subscriber station
information, as expressed in instant claim 18.
Although appellant’s arguments suggest otherwise, appellant’s “Summary of the
Invention” in the Brief does not point out any particular difference in the radio
connection per se on the basis of the subscriber station information. Nor do we find
any description of such in the instant disclosure. For example, as shown in instant
Figures 3 and 4, and described at pages 7 and 8 of the specification, telephone or
telefax is selected, based on subscriber station information, by control of switches 416,
417, rather than by adjusting RF part 413.
Vucetic describes “dialing rules,” and provides an example of an “end of dialing
sequence” that may detect the end of the dialing sequence for “911.” Vucetic further
describes type of dialing rules that may be created, such as:
autodial options that enable the WT [wireless terminal] to immediately dial
a number when an off hook condition is sensed, sending of a signal to an
operator when an interdigit time out interval of a particular duration is
sensed as well as other dialing rules allowing the recognition of long
distance numbers, the interposing of telephone credit card accounts, and
other flexible functions associated with dialing.
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-5-
Vucetic col. 5, ll. 58-64. The wireless terminal applies the pertinent dialing rules and
sends the dialed number to the base station, according to the rules in effect. Col. 6, ll.
5-27; Fig. 3.
Although we appreciate the differences between appellant’s invention as
disclosed and the disclosure of Vucetic, we agree with the examiner that the instant
claims are so broad as to embrace the system of Vucetic within their scope. A selected
“data transfer procedure” as set forth by instant claim 18 requires no more than giving
effect to the dialing rules as described by Vucetic.
Appellant further argues there is no selection based on a “connection identifier,”
as recited in representative claim 19. The examiner responds (Answer at 6) that the
dialing information of Vucetic “contains the information (identifier) of attached
subscribers i.e. phone, fax, and computer.”
Instant claim 19 requires “at least two” connection identifiers. Figure 2 of Vucetic
shows parallel connections from phone line interface 26 to the subscriber equipment.
We find no disclosure of separate identifiers for the equipment. We are persuaded by
appellant that the rejection of claim 19 is erroneous.
We thus sustain the section 102 rejection of claims 18 and 26-35. We do not
sustain the rejection of claim 19, nor of the claims incorporating the limitations of 19
(i.e., claims 20-23).
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-6-
Section 103 rejection of Claims 24 and 25
Because we are persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 19, and Åkerberg
fails to remedy the deficiencies with respect to Vucetic, we do not sustain the section
103 rejection of claims 24 and 25, which depend from claim 19.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 18 and 26-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Vucetic is affirmed. The rejection of claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Vucetic is reversed. The rejection of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Vucetic and Åkerberg is reversed.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 18-35 is thus affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-7-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1435
Application No. 08/861,213
-8-
CLARENCE A GREEN
PERMAN & GREEN
425 POST ROAD
FAIRFIELD , CT 06430