Appeal 2007-1758
Application 10/004,786
interaction of the mobile terminal, its wireless network interface card, and an
access point as claimed.
After reviewing the disclosures of Beach and Larsson in light of the
arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position
as stated in the Brief. With respect to Beach, to whatever extent the
Examiner may be correct in the finding that Beach discloses a mobile
terminal, a wireless network card, and an access point, the Examiner has
correctly recognized that Beach has no disclosure of any requests by the
mobile terminal for a change in power state (appealed claim 1), nor any
interaction of the mobile terminal with a network interface card to force a
less active power state due to inactivity (appealed claim 13).
We also find no disclosure in Larsson that would overcome the
deficiencies of Beach in disclosing the specific claimed interaction among
the mobile terminal, the wireless network card, and the access point. While
Larsson arguably provides a teaching of a mobile terminal communicating
with a base station, i.e., an access point, to request a transition to a less
active power state, there is no disclosure of any kind of interaction with a
wireless network interface card. Given this deficiency in the disclosure of
Larsson, we fail to see how and in what manner Larsson might be combined
with Beach to arrive at Appellants’ invention as claimed.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, since the
Larsson reference does not overcome the deficiencies of Beach discussed
above, the references, even if combined, do not support the obviousness
rejection. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, nor of claims 7, 11, and 14-16
dependent thereon.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013