Ex Parte Karaoguz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2012

10327079 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ and NAMBI SESHADRI ____________ Appeal 2010-008106 Application 10/327,079 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-42 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-008106 Application 10/327,079 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to methods, devices, and networks for allowing wireless hotspots to enable or disable access to the wireless hotspots (Spec. ¶ [0002]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A process of enabling and controlling access by a wireless portable device to a wireless hotspot on a Local Area Network (LAN), said process comprising: sending over a Wide Area Network (WAN) that operates separately from the LAN an access request, seeking access to the wireless hotspot, to an authenticating entity, wherein the access request does not pass through the LAN; awaiting response to the access request; responding with verification information when requested by the wireless hotspot; and exchanging wireless network data between the wireless portable device and the wireless hotspot, wherein the access request includes an identifier used by the authenticating entity to authenticate the wireless portable device. REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Kalavade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0191575 A1, published December 19, 2002) and Dowling (U.S. Patent Appeal 2010-008106 Application 10/327,079 3 Application Publication No. 2005/0198199 A1, published September 8, 2005) (Ans. 3-24). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Kalavade and Dowling suggests an access request that does not pass through a LAN as claimed in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 35, 36, and 42 (App. Br. 23-27).1 The Examiner finds, and we agree, paragraphs [0042], [0076], and [0078] of Kalavade disclose an access request to an authenticating entity is sent through a WAN (without going through any other type of network) (Ans. 25). Although “Kalavade et al does not specifically teach wherein the access request does not pass through the LAN” (Ans.4), in light of at least paragraph [0076] and Figure 5, it does not allude to a different interpretation. Further Dowling also discloses the access request does not pass through a LAN (Ans. 4; Dowling ¶¶ [0049]-[0053]). Appellants’ contention that Dowling’s service request is merely a general request for wireless service (App. Br. 27) and Dowling’s “‘positional information’ does not qualify as ‘an access request, seeking access to the wireless hotspot’” is without merit (Reply Br. 6) (emphasis omitted). Paragraph [0049] relied on by Appellants states the access point initiates communication between the mobile unit and the local area wireless access point. Further, Dowling’s paragraph [0060] states a set of information is transmitted to the server, the 1 Appellants assert, on page 24 of the Appeal Brief, claim 15 does not include this limitation as it was inadvertently not amended. Appellants also did not address claim 15 in the Appeal Brief, but included claim 15 in the grouping of independent claims in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 3, 7). Appeal 2010-008106 Application 10/327,079 4 information may include a service request and/or a location, and may be for a high-speed wireless link. Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner’s error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness and conclude the Examiner did not err in finding claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22, 28, 29, 35, 36, and 42 obvious over Kalavade and Dowling. With respect to claim 3 and claims 10, 17, 24, 31, and 38, which recite the limitation “verify continued access to the wireless hotspot,” we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 26-27). With respect to claim 5, and claims 19 and 33, which recite the limitation “an access request to a landline telephone provider,” we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans. 27-28). We further find it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan that landlines could be used as well as wireless service. With respect to claims 4, 11-13, 18, 20, 25-27, 32, 34, and 39-41, these claims were not separately argued and fall with their respective independent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17-22, 24-29, 31-36, and 38-42 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-008106 Application 10/327,079 5 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)(2010). AFFIRMED llw