Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`12/615,098
`
`Examiner
`
`BARRY TAYLOR
`
`GORSUCH, THOMAS E.
`
`Art Unit
`
`2617
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) BARRY TAYLOR.
`
`(2) Robert Leonard.
`
`(3) __ .
`
`(4) __ .
`
`Type:
`
`Date of Interview: 11 April2012.
`1Z1 Telephonic 0 Video Conference
`0 Personal [copy given to: 0 applicant
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: 0 Yes
`If Yes, brief description: __ .
`
`0 applicant's representative]
`1Z1 No.
`
`Issues Discussed 0101 0112 0102 IZI1 03 OOthers
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1-
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Lemilainen 6,243,581 and Jawanda 6,243,581 ..
`
`Substance of Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof. claim interpretation. proposed amendments. arguments of any applied references etc ... )
`
`Discussed prior art applied to independent claim 1. Applicants will propose an amendment in response to the
`interview on 411112012. The Examiner requested a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome parent patent 6.526.034.
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form. whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised.
`
`0 Attachment
`/Barry W T aylorl
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
`
`U S Patent and Trademark Off1ce
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`PaperNo. 20120411
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00001
`
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`Exhibit 2003
`Microsoft Corp v. IPR Licensing, Inc.
`IPR2015-00074
`
`

`

`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete wri11en statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be made of record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the Interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an Interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable act1on must be filed by the applicant. An Interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in§§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so. It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made and to correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like. are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment. no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the
`"Contents" section of the file wrapper. In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`~Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`~Name of applicant
`~Name of examiner
`~ Date of interview
`~Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`~Name of participant(s) (applicant. attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`~An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
`~An identification of the specific prior art discussed
`An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
`~The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
`should be noted. however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substance of the interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed.
`3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner.
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
`required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the
`examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of course. the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
`describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview. If the record is not complete and
`accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner's version of the
`statement attributed to him or her. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, "Interview Record OK" on the
`paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00002
`
`
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Lll\ITED STATES DEl'ARTMEJ\T OF COMMERCE
`United State~ Patent and Trademark Offil'E'
`Add>ecc' CO:\IMISSIONER FOR PATEKTS
`P.O. Dox 1450
`Alexa.udtia., Vi1ginia 22313-1450
`www uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED IJ\vENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIR:\IATION '10.
`
`12/615.098
`
`1 l/O'J/200'.1
`
`Thomas E. Gorsuch
`
`l'AN-2-14'J3LS05
`
`9856
`
`I 0120/2011
`
`24'\74
`7'i90
`VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C.
`DEPT. ICC
`UNITED PLAZA
`30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
`PHILADELPHIA, Pi\ 19103
`
`EXAMI'IER
`
`TA1'H1R. BARRYW
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER 1\ TMDER
`
`2617
`
`1\UTlHCl\"l!U'I DATI=
`
`DELIVERY :\iUD!o
`
`10/20/2011
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00003
`
`
`
`

`

`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`12/615,098
`
`Examiner
`
`GORSUCH, THOMAS E.
`
`Art Unit
`
`I
`2617
`BARRY TAYLOR
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -(cid:173)
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE~ MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however. may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication
`Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute. cause the application to become ABANDONED 135 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailmg date of this communication. even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1 )[8] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 23 August 2011.
`2a)0 This action is FINAL.
`2b)[8] This action is non-final.
`3)0 An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`__ ;the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)0 Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C. D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)[8] Claim(s) 1,2,4-12 and 14-30 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s) __ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`6)0 Claim(s) __ is/are allowed.
`7)[8] Claim(s) 1 2 4-12 and 14-30 is/are rejected.
`8)0 Claim(s) __ is/are objected to.
`9)0 Claim(s) __ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`1 0)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11 )[8] The drawing(s) filed on 09 November 2009 is/are: a)[8] accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`12)0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PT0-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`13)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S. C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
`1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __ .
`3.0 Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) [8] Notice of References Cited (PT0-892)
`2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PT0-948)
`3) [8] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date __ .
`
`4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) 0 Other: __ .
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Off1ce
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-11)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No/Mail Date 20111013
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00004
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1 03(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Sainton et al (2008/0274767 hereinafter Sainton) in view of
`
`Lemilainen (7,502,626) further in view of Jawanda (6,243581 ).
`
`Regarding claim 1. Sainton teaches a subscriber unit comprising:
`
`a first transceiver configured to communicate with a first wireless network via a
`
`plurality of assigned physical layer channels (abstract, paragraphs 0027-0028, see
`
`paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0083 wherein first transceiver can be COMA and second
`
`transceiver can be wireless LAN (i.e. 802.11 as defined in Applicants specification),
`
`paragraphs 0081-0082);
`
`a second transceiver configured to communicate with a second wireless network
`
`(abstract, paragraphs 0027-0028, see paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0083 wherein first
`
`transceiver can be COMA and second transceiver can be wireless LAN (i.e. 802.11 as
`
`defined in Applicants specification), paragraphs 0081-0082); and
`
`a processor coupled to the first transceiver and the second transceiver (abstract,
`
`paragraphs 0027-0028, see paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0083 wherein first transceiver
`
`can be COMA and second transceiver can be wireless LAN (i.e. 802.11 as defined in
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00005
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 3
`
`Applicants specification), paragraphs 0081-0082), and configured to maintain a
`
`communication session, above a physical layer, with the first wireless network in the
`
`absence of the plurality of assigned physical layer channels.
`
`Sainton does not explicitly show the processor configured to maintain a
`
`communication session, above a physical layer, with the first wireless network in the
`
`absence of the plurality of assigned physical layer channels.
`
`The Examiner notes that Applicants have defined "a processor configured to
`
`maintain a communication session, with the first wireless network in the absence of the
`
`plurality of assigned physical layer channels while communicating packet data with the
`
`IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network via the second transceiver". For example,
`
`Applicants generally point to paragraphs 0023 and 0078 (see paper dated 1/28/2011 at
`
`page 9 which basically indicates some sort of spoofing (i.e. spoof the terminal into
`
`believing that a sufficient wide wireless communication link is continuously available).
`
`Furthermore, the Examiner notes that during the interview 10/27/2010, Applicants
`
`generally pointed to items 25 and 46 of figure 1 for support wherein items 25 and 46 are
`
`basic protocol converters. Applicants indicated that paragraphs 0045 and 0046
`
`describe the protocol converters are nothing more than a middle layer (i.e. intermediate
`
`layer) within the context of the OSI model.
`
`Lemilainen teaches a system wherein a mobile station can switch to an IP
`
`access protocol (abstract, col. 2 lines 24-50). Lemilainen teaches the mobile can
`
`communicate with the system using short range communication, instead of the cellular
`
`network (col. 3 lines 3-7) wherein an interworking unit is provided in the mobile station
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00006
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 4
`
`(col. 3 lines 8-15, figure 11, col. 12 line 65 -col. 13 line 50) which provides the
`
`subscriber the opportunity to utilize the services of one's own mobile communication
`
`system anywhere, where an Internet connection is possible, independent of the
`
`available access technique (col. 12 line 65- col. 13 line 50). Lemilainen teaches
`
`cellular network and wireless LAN (i.e. 802 compliant) may be used (col. 7 lines 1-19).
`
`Lemilainen teaches the mobile represented with layers 1 to 3 (see figure 11, col. 14
`
`lines 13-51) wherein the network layer provides call control management and radio
`
`resource management and further comprises a MUX (see 536 figure 11) which
`
`"switches" to a second branch or layer 2 (i.e. data layer which is also above the PHY
`
`layer) to demand services of the data link and PHY layer which ultimately allows the
`
`mobile subscriber to utilize communication networks, such as private intranets to carry
`
`services of cellular network when it is within coverage area.
`
`It would have been obvious for any one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the dual mode phone as taught by Sainton to incorporate the
`
`interworking unit as taught by Lemilainen in order to provide seamless handovers
`
`between different radio communication networks as disclosed by Lemilainen.
`
`According to Applicants, Sainton in view of Lemilainen do not show maintaining a
`
`communication session with the first wireless network while communicating packet data
`
`with the 802.11 wireless Local Area Network via the second transceiver (paper dated
`
`8/23/2011, page 14).
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00007
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 5
`
`Jawanda teaches a dual mode phone that uses a network access arbitrator that
`
`provides seamlessly handoff transfer of datagrams from WWAN connection (i.e.
`
`cellular network) to WLAN connection, WHILE maintaining WWAN connection (see
`
`step 122 in figure 4, abstract, col. 3 lines 1-27, col. 3 line 66 -col. 4 line 19, col. 5 lines
`
`20-42). Jawanda even teaches seamlessly handoff transfer of datagrams from WLAN
`
`connection to WWAN connection WHILE maintaining WLAN connection (see step
`
`132 in figure 4, col. 5 line 62- col. 6 line 20). Jawanda is extremely clear in that the
`
`present invention provides an improved method and system for wireless data
`
`communication in which transfer of datagrams may be seamlessly handed off between
`
`multiple concurrent wireless data connections while maintaining an application-level
`
`session (col. 6 lines 11-20) ..
`
`It would have been obvious for anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the dual mode phone as taught by Sainton in view of Lemilainen to
`
`incorporate the software network arbitrator as taught by Jawanda in order to maintain a
`
`communication session with the WWAN (i.e. first wireless network such as COMA)
`
`WHILE communication datagrams (i.e. packet data) with the WLAN as disclosed by
`
`Jawanda which ultimately provides for seamless roaming between wireless
`
`communication networks.
`
`Regarding claim 11. Method claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as
`
`apparatus claim 1 since the recited apparatus would perform the claimed method.
`
`Regarding claims 2 and 12. Sainton teaches wherein the first wireless network is
`
`a cellular wireless (abstract, paragraphs 0027-0028, see paragraphs 0039-0040 and
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00008
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 6
`
`0083 wherein first transceiver can be COMA and second transceiver can be wireless
`
`LAN (i.e. 802.11 as defined in Applicants specification), paragraphs 0081-0082).
`
`Jawanda also teaches the first wireless network can be a cellular wireless
`
`network (col. 3 lines 1-27).
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 14. Sainton does not explicitly show wherein the packet
`
`data is transmission control protocol and Internet protocol (TCP/IP) packet data.
`
`Lemilainen teaches a system wherein a mobile station can switch to an IP
`
`access protocol (abstract, col. 2 lines 24-50). Lemilainen teaches the mobile can
`
`communicate with the system using short range communication, instead of the cellular
`
`network (col. 3 lines 3-7) wherein an interworking unit is provided in the mobile station
`
`(col. 3 lines 8-15) which provides the subscriber the opportunity to utilize the services of
`
`one's own mobile communication system anywhere, where an Internet connection is
`
`possible, independent of the available access technique (col. 12 line 65- col. 13 line
`
`50). Lemilainen teaches cellular network and wireless LAN (i.e. 802 compliant) may be
`
`used (col. 7 lines 1-19). Lemilainen teaches the mobile represented with layers 1 to 3
`
`(see figure 11, col. 14 lines 13-51) wherein the network layer provides call control
`
`management and radio resource management and further comprises a MUX (see 536
`
`figure 11) which "switches" to a second branch or layer 2 (i.e. data layer which is also
`
`above the PHY layer) to demand services of the data link and PHY layer which
`
`ultimately allows the mobile subscriber to utilize communication networks, such as
`
`private intranets to carry services of cellular network when it is within coverage area.
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00009
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 7
`
`It would have been obvious for any one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the dual mode phone as taught by Sainton to use the MUX as taught
`
`by Lemilainen in order to provide the mobile subscriber a means to switch to an IP
`
`access protocol when it is within coverage area.
`
`Regarding claims 5 and 15. Sainton does not explicitly show wherein the
`
`communication session is a transmission control protocol (TCP) layer session, an
`
`Internet protocol (IP) layer session, or a network layer session.
`
`The Examiner notes that Applicants admit that newly accepted standard, IEEE
`
`802.11, specifies a protocol for the MAC and PHY layers of a wireless LAN (see
`
`Applicants specification page 3).
`
`Lemilainen teaches a system wherein a mobile station can switch to an IP
`
`access protocol (abstract, col. 2 lines 24-50). Lemilainen teaches the mobile can
`
`communicate with the system using short range communication, instead of the cellular
`
`network (col. 3 lines 3-7) wherein an interworking unit is provided in the mobile station
`
`(col. 3 lines 8-15) which provides the subscriber the opportunity to utilize the services of
`
`one's own mobile communication system anywhere, where an Internet connection is
`
`possible, independent of the available access technique (col. 12 line 65- col. 13 line
`
`50). Lemilainen teaches cellular network and wireless LAN (i.e. 802 compliant) may be
`
`used (col. 7 lines 1-19). Lemilainen teaches the mobile represented with layers 1 to 3
`
`(see figure 11, col. 14 lines 13-51) wherein the network layer provides call control
`
`management and radio resource management and further comprises a MUX (see 536
`
`figure 11) which "switches" to a second branch or layer 2 (i.e. data layer which is also
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00010
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 8
`
`above the PHY layer) to demand services of the data link and PHY layer which
`
`ultimately allows the mobile subscriber to utilize communication networks, such as
`
`private intranets to carry services of cellular network when it is within coverage area.
`
`It would have been obvious for any one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the dual mode phone as taught by Sainton to use the MUX located
`
`in the Network layer (see figure 11 wherein MUX is clearly above the PHY layer
`
`and within the network layer) as taught by Lemilainen in order to provide the mobile
`
`subscriber a means to switch to an I P access protocol when it is within coverage area.
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 16. Sainton teaches a detector configured to detect the
`
`IEEE 802 compliant wireless network; and a circuit configured to select the second
`
`transceiver in response to the detector detecting the IEEE 802 compliant wireless
`
`network (abstract, paragraphs 0027-0028, see paragraphs 0039-0040 and 0083
`
`wherein first transceiver can be COMA and second transceiver can be wireless LAN
`
`(i.e. 802.11 as defined in Applicants specification), paragraphs 0081-0082).
`
`Jawanda also teaches detecting WLAN and circuit configured to select the
`
`second transceiver (see col. 3 line 65 - col. 6 line 20 wherein cellular access interface
`
`used for transmitting and receiving via cellular network and WLAN interface is used for
`
`transmitting and receiving via WLAN).
`
`Regarding claims 7 and 17. Sainton does not explicitly show wherein the
`
`processor is further configured to release the plurality of assigned physical channels.
`
`The Examiner notes that Applicants admit that newly accepted standard, IEEE
`
`802.11, specifies a protocol for the MAC and PHY layers of a wireless LAN (see
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00011
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 9
`
`Applicants specification page 3). Furthermore, it is noted that the MAC layer takes
`
`charge of selecting a physical channel and set or release connection of a call on
`
`the selected physical channel.
`
`In order to advance prosecution, Lemilainen teaches a system wherein a mobile
`
`station can switch to an IP access protocol (abstract, col. 2 lines 24-50). Lemilainen
`
`teaches the mobile can communicate with the system using short range communication,
`
`instead of the cellular network (col. 3 lines 3-7) wherein an interworking unit is provided
`
`in the mobile station (col. 3 lines 8-15) which provides the subscriber the opportunity to
`
`utilize the services of one's own mobile communication system anywhere, where an
`
`Internet connection is possible, independent of the available access technique (col. 12
`
`line 65- col. 13 line 50). Lemilainen teaches cellular network and wireless LAN (i.e.
`
`802 compliant) may be used (col. 7 lines 1-19). Lemilainen teaches the mobile
`
`represented with layers 1 to 3 (see figure 11, col. 14 lines 13-51) wherein the network
`
`layer provides call control management and radio resource management and further
`
`comprises a MUX (see 536 figure 11) which "switches" to a second branch or layer 2
`
`(i.e. data layer which is also above the PHY layer) to demand services of the data link
`
`and PHY layer which ultimately allows the mobile subscriber to utilize communication
`
`networks, such as private intranets to carry services of cellular network when it is within
`
`coverage area.
`
`It would have been obvious for any one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to modify the dual mode phone as taught by Sainton to use the MUX located
`
`in the Network layer (see figure 11 wherein MUX is clearly above the PHY layer
`
`
`
` Ex. 2003 - 00012
`
`
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 12/615,098
`Art Unit: 2617
`
`Page 10
`
`and within the network layer) as taught by Lemilainen in order to provide the mobile
`
`subscriber a means to switch to an I P access protocol when it is within coverage area.
`
`The Examiner notes that by switching to an IP connection free