Appeal 2007-1415
Application 09/795,704
determination, the controller then selects one communication network and
connects the man-machine interface 105 to the appropriate communication
module 120 supporting the protocol of the selected network 200 via interface
230 and switch 120 (Rydbeck, col. 3, ll. 36-47).
We agree with the Examiner that Rydbeck’s controller 160 fully
meets an “interoperability entity” giving the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation. In our view, the controller “interoperates” with multiple
modules that support diverse communications protocols by selecting and
connecting the appropriate module to effectuate communication with the
appropriate network.
Moreover, we find that Rydbeck’s controller 160 (i.e.,
“interoperability entity”) is “coupled to” not only to the respective modules
(stacks), but also the router and operating mode switch 150. To obtain the
protocol information, the controller 160 reads the memory 220 of the
appropriate module (Rydbeck, col. 3, ll. 29-34). Certainly, the controller
must be coupled to the modules to read their memories. Moreover, the
controller is coupled to switch 150 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in col.
2, ll. 40-44.
We also agree with the Examiner that there must be a transceiver in
Rydbeck’s mobile telephone to effectuate wireless communication to the
networks 200 -- a point Appellants apparently concede in the Reply Brief.4
Although the transceiver is not shown, it must be “coupled to” the modules
(stacks) and router and operating mode switch -- at least indirectly -- to
4 See Reply Br. 1 (“Applicants do not assert that Rydbeck fails to disclose a
transceiver per se as alleged by the Examiner.”). We also agree with the
Examiner on Page 4 of the Answer that the antenna on top of mobile phone
100 implies the presence of a transceiver.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013