Ex Parte Wan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2012

10120627 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2012)

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.
10/120,627 04/11/2002 Dadong Wan 33836.00.0031 2068
30498 7590 09/04/2012
Vedder Price PC
222 NORTH LASALLE STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60601
EXAMINER
CHO, UN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
4133
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte DADONG WAN, ANATOLE V. GERSHMAN, and
KRISHNA RAO
________________

Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627
Technology Center 4100
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7, 10-17, 19, 21-30, 32, and 34-36
which stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Odashima et al. (US 2002/0022489 A1, February 21, 2002)
(“Odashima”) and DeKock et al. (US 2004/0267440 A1, December 30,
2004) (“DeKock”) and claims 9, 18, and 31 which stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Odashima,
DeKock, and Petite et al. (US 6,437,692 B1, August 20, 2002) (“Petite”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ application is directed to a mobile wireless device that
provides location-related information to a remote monitoring position and
one or more environmental sensors that provide local information to the
mobile wireless device via the remote monitoring position. Abstract.
Appellants submit that the Examiner erred for substantially the same
reasons with respect to claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-32, and 34-36. We therefore
choose independent claim 1 as representative of these claims. Claim 1
recites:
1. A system for providing remote monitoring, comprising:

at least one mobile wireless device, wherein location-
related information can be determined for each mobile wireless
device of the at least one mobile wireless device;

Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627

3
a remote monitoring position, in wireless
communication with the at least one mobile wireless device,
that ascertains the location-related information for a mobile
wireless device of the at least one mobile wireless device; and

at least one environmental sensor, coupled to the remote
monitoring position, that provides, in response to a request
from the remote monitoring position, environmental
information regarding a region proximate to a location based
on the location-related information,

wherein the remote monitoring position further provides
at least a portion of the environmental information to the
mobile wireless device.

App. Br. App’x A.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Odashima and DeKock. App. Br. 15. Specifically,
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in combining Odashima and
DeKock, because the proposed combination would render Odashima
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants also
argue that the Examiner erred because the combination of Odashima and
DeKock does not disclose or suggest the limitation of claim 1 which recites
at least one environmental sensor, coupled to the remote monitoring
position, that provides, in response to a request from the remote monitoring
position, environmental information regarding a region proximate to a
location based on the location-related information. App. Br. 13. Therefore,
the issue presented to us is whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting
Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627

4
claim 1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Odashima and DeKock.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in combining Odashima
and DeKock, because the proposed modification of Odashima by DeKock
would render Odashima unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. App. Br.
11. Appellants point to a portion of Odashima’s Description of the Related
Art, which recites that, in certain emergency situations, it could be
dangerous for a user of the mobile terminal to engage in two-way
communications with the center. App. Br. 1-12 (citing Odashima, p. 1,
¶ [0006]). Therefore, according to Appellants, a person of ordinary skill in
the art, appreciating this purpose of Odashima, would not look to teachings
of the prior art as found in DeKock, i.e., providing environmental
information from remote sensors back to the mobile terminal, because to do
so would be directly contrary to the very problem Odashima seeks to solve.
App. Br. 12. We disagree with Appellants. Appellants’ citation to the
emergency situation where two-way communications may be dangerous is
merely one situation in which Odashima’s invention would be useful to a
user. Another embodiment cited by Odashima, in paragraph [0005], is an
emergency situation where two-way communication would be helpful to a
user. Thus, the combination of Odashima with DeKock does not render
Odashima unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
Additionally, Appellants argue that Odashima is silent with respect to
the desirability of sending remote sensor information to the mobile
terminal. App. Br. 12. However, Appellants’ argument is misplaced as the
Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627

5
Examiner finds that DeKock, not Odashima, teaches a traffic monitor, i.e.,
an environmental sensor, which provides traffic information to the mobile
terminal. Ans. 13. Thus we agree with the Examiner.

Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred because the
combination of Odashima and DeKock does not disclose or suggest an
environmental sensor that transmits environmental information in response
to a request from the remote monitoring position. App. Br. 13. According
to Appellants, DeKock teaches an environmental sensor that transmits the
signals provided by the traffic monitors to the receiver continuously or at
intervals, but does not disclose or suggest a sensor that transmits only in
response to a request from the remote monitoring station. App. Br. 14.
However, the Examiner also finds that DeKock teaches, in one
embodiment, that mobile user stations can be used to provide environmental
information, such as traffic, to the computer system coupled to the remote
monitoring position. Ans. 13. Such environmental information is provided
in response to a request from the remote monitoring position. Id. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings.
For the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 and claims 2-7, 9-119, 21-32, and 34-36 that have been grouped
with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-17, 19, 21-30,
32, and 34-36 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
Appeal 2010-005778
Application 10/120,627

6
over Odashima and DeKock and claims 9, 18, and 31 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Odashima, DeKock, and Petite.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-32, and 34-36
is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke