Opinion ID: 222190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Perkins in View of Hortensius and Additional References

Text: The Board affirmed the rejections of several claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. patent no. 5,159,592 (Perkins) in view of U.S. patent no. 5,917,629 (Hortensius) and other references. Perkins teaches a system for communication between mobile users shown in figure 2: The system allows bidirectional communications between mobile units (MU) 10. Perkins col.3 ll.16-21. One of the possible types of communications is mail. Id. col.7 ll.37-39. Because the MUs are not permanent, the global gateway 18 assigns each mobile unit a pseudo-IP address. Id. col.5 ll.2-6. A user at an originating processor may send a message destined for an MU. The message is routed through the global gateway, which inserts the pseudo-IP address of the destination MU. Each pseudo-IP address includes digits to identify the LAN of the MU. Id. col.4 ll.39-48. The global gateway then forwards the message to the appropriate LAN's local gateway for delivery to the appropriate MU. Id. col.5 ll.28-30. NTP argues that the Board erred in rejecting certain dependent claims that require that a receiving RF device have at least one application program, executed by the processor, which processes the information [contained in an electronic mail]. '451 patent claim 248. If NTP is correct, then the rejection of these claims is improper regardless of whether Perkins discloses electronic mail. We agree with the PTO that Perkins teaches a processor that necessarily processes the information received by the RF receiver. The RF receiver receives the information and makes it available to the destination computer. This alone is some amount of processing. NTP would have us adopt Dr. Rhyne's definition of application program that requires substantial useful functions for a user. XXXX-XXXX Appellant's Br. 40. We decline to adopt this rigid definition and agree with the PTO that substantial evidence supports a finding that Perkins discloses this limitation. Further, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Perkins teaches the addition of RF identification information by an interface. Perkins teaches the assignment of a pseudo-IP address to mobile units (which correspond to the RF receivers). Perkins col.4 ll.49-60. This address is added by an interface (the global gateway). Regarding Hortensius, NTP argues that it fails to teach the very limitation for which the Board relied on it: transmission via a wireline network rather than the RF information transmission network. But it is clear that Hortensius does indeed teach this limitation. Hortensius teaches a system for transmitting information between nodes that may be data processors, network servers and/or any of a number of conventional devices. Hortensius col.3 ll.5-7. Importantly, Hortensius states that the packet 40 may be directed from wired node 14 to another wired node 14 or, via the protocol processor 28 and transmitter 24, to one of the wireless nodes 18. Id. col.4 ll.13-16. NTP makes much of the fact that Hortensius discloses a broadcast mode when all of the wired and wireless nodes receive a transmission. See id. col.4 ll.21-29. But this disclosure of a broadcast mode does not conflict with or alter the earlier statement that an individual packet may be directed either between two wired nodes or between a wired and a wireless node as the claim requires. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. NTP also challenges the Board's holding that certain claims are obvious over Perkins in view of Hortensius and the AAPA. Specifically, NTP argues that none of these references teach the one interface switch ... assembles the originated information with additional originated information ... into a packet.... '960 patent claim 3. We agree with the PTO that substantial evidence supports the Board's finding. Specifically, the AAPA states that X.24 protocol permit[s] a variable number of pages or data transmissions each with its own network destination to be formed into a packet which is transmitted to a single switch. Id. col.7 ll.29-32. We also agree with the Board's conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine these multiple communications into a single packet. Finally, NTP argues that the Board erred in holding that certain claims would have been obvious over Perkins in view of Hortensius, the AAPA and further in view of Notable Computer Networks, Communications of the ACM, October 1986, Vol. 29, No. 10 (Quarterman). XXXX-XXXX J.A. 9049. NTP argues that these references fail to teach that: the wireline ... is one of either a public or private switch telephone network with the at least one destination processor being addressed during transmission of the other originated information to the at least one destination processor when using the public or private switch telephone network with a different address than the address used during transmission of the originated information to the at least one of the plurality of destination processors by the RF information transmission network. '960 patent claim 7. In other words, when transmitting over wireline, the wireline must be a phone line and the destination processor must have a different address than it would when the message is sent wirelessly. NTP's arguments are factual in nature: that no reference teaches this claimed feature. However, Quarterman states that [a] resource may have more than one name, address, or route depending on the type of network. XXXX-XXXX J.A. 9055-56. We agree with the PTO that this is substantial evidence to support the Board's fact-finding that Quarterman discloses this claim limitation.