Appeal 2007-1758
Application 10/004,786
Turning to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 3 and 18 as well as that of dependent claims 10, 12, and
23 based on the combination of Beach and van Bokhorst, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. Independent claims 3 and 18 are directed to an “ad-
hoc” network in which a first mobile terminal will interact with a wireless
interface network card and a second mobile terminal to request transition
from an active to a less active state.
As with the previously discussed rejection of independent claims 1
and 13, the Examiner looks to a secondary reference, van Bokhorst in this
case, to address the deficiencies of Beach in disclosing any requests made by
a mobile terminal for a change in power state. We do not find any
disclosure in van Bokhorst, however, which would overcome the above-
noted deficiencies of Beach. We find in van Bokhorst, at best, a disclosure
of an “ad-hoc” network beginning at column 7, line 15, as well as a
disclosure (col. 2, l. 42 through col. 3, l. 15) of “awake” and “doze” power
states under control of a doze timer 46 and state switch 44. There is no
disclosure, however, of any requests by the mobile terminal for a power state
transition, let alone any interaction with a wireless network interface card to
communicate with and act upon any such requests.
Lastly, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 5, 8, 19-22, 24, and 25 in which the Chen reference is added to the
combination of Beach and van Bokhorst to address the claimed feature of a
mobile terminal requesting to be disassociated or de-authenticated from an
access point (independent claim 5) or from another mobile terminal
(independent claim 8). While we agree with the Examiner (Answer 8-9) that
Chen provides a disclosure of a mobile terminal requesting that it be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013