Ex Parte Ahokangas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11546389 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte TOMMI AHOKANGAS
____________

Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, 22-24, and 261. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Claims 10, 19, 21 and 25 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.
Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to connection establishment in a system
comprising multiple radio access networks for accessing core network
services. Abstract.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, 20, 23, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal, and recites:
1. A method, comprising:
requesting registration of a terminal via a first radio access
network to an element providing access to a core network to
provide circuit-switched services to the terminal via the first
radio access network;
requesting establishment of a connection via the first radio
access network to the element for providing circuit-switched
core network services for the terminal via the first radio access
network; and
as a response to detecting a failure in the establishment of the
connection via the first radio access network, releasing
attachment to the element via the first radio access network and
initiating a connection establishment procedure for accessing
circuit-switched core network services via a second radio access
network,
wherein the detected failure of the connection establishment is
handled as a lower layer fault and at least one connection or a
tunnel used for communicating with the element by a protocol
entity below an entity for the connection establishment is
released.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 18, 20, 22-24, and 26 stand rejected under
Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389

3
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being unpatentable over Gallagher (US 2005/0266853
A1). Ans. 3-16.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gallagher, Purkayastha (US 2004/0248615 A1), and
Argilés (Speed Effect on the Link Level Performance of a Multi Node B
Enhanced UTRAN Architecture, 1st International Symposium, Sep. 20-22,
2004, at 21-25). Ans. 16-17.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gallagher and Carter (Contact Networking: A Localized
Mobility System, MobiSys 2003: The First International Conference on
Mobile Systems, Applications and Services, 2003, at 145-158). Ans. 18-20.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gallagher, Shaheen (US 2005/0002407 A1), and Argilés.
Ans. 20-22.
Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gallagher and Shaheen. Ans. 22-26.

ISSUES
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 11, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in error. Br. 12-17, 21-22, 25-
27. These arguments present us with the dispositive issue for independent
claims 1, 11, 23 and 26: did the Examiner err in finding that Gallagher
discloses as a response to detecting a failure in the establishment of the
connection via the first radio access network, releasing attachment to the
element via the first radio access network and initiating a connection
establishment procedure via a second radio access network?
Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389

4
Additionally, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in error. Br. 23-24.
Appellant’s arguments present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
finding that Gallagher discloses all of the elements of independent claim 20?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that Gallagher teaches as a response to detecting a failure in the
establishment of the connection via the first radio access network, releasing
attachment to the element via the first radio access network and initiating a
connection establishment procedure via a second radio access network, as is
recited in each of independent claims 1, 11, 23 and 26 and all of the
dependent claims. However, we agree with the Examiner that Gallagher
teaches all of the elements of independent claim 20.
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, 22-24, and 26
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner states that
Gallagher teaches a handover that is initiated by tearing down the connection
to the first network. Ans. 28. The Examiner relies on excerpts of Gallagher
(see Ans. 27-28) that teach, for example, a handover procedure starting from
“Step A” representing “an existing connection that has previously been
established,” and a handover procedure that “begins with a connection
established and the MS in a dedicated state . . . .” Gallagher ¶263, ¶266.
While we agree with the Examiner to the extent that the Examiner states
Gallagher teaches a handover, independent claims 1, 11, 23, and 26 each
Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389

5
recite that a connection establishment procedure is initiated via the second
radio access network as a response to detecting a failure in the establishment
of the connection via the first radio access network. As argued by
Appellant, “Gallagher describes, as illustrated in Figure 1A, another radio
system 118 (GSM-based), but fails to mention any indication of an
establishment of a connection via this radio system 118 in response to the
error in the URR channel activation . . . .” Br. 16. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, 23 and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon Gallagher. Likewise, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-9, 12-18, 22 and 24
as each of these claims depends from one of independent claims 1, 11, 23 or
26.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
We note that independent claim 20 does not recite initiating a
connection establishment procedure via a second radio access network, as
recited in the other independent claims. Appellant contends, however, that
like independent claim 1, claim 20 recites “as a response to detecting, on the
basis of an expiry of a timer started in connection with the transmission of
the request, a failure in an establishment of a connection via the Internet
protocol access network for circuit-switched communications with a public
land mobile network, treat the failure as a lower layer failure.” Br. 23-24.
For independent claim 20, Appellant relies on arguments presented for claim
1 that Gallagher fails to teach handling the detected failure as a lower layer
fault. Br. 24.
We agree with the Examiner that Gallagher teaches this limitation. As
correctly explained by the Examiner, Gallagher discloses protocol
Appeal 2010-010213
Application 11/546,389

6
architectures and explains communication at different layers, such as layers
1, 2, and 3. Ans. 27-28 (citing Gallagher Fig. 2A, ¶80-¶83, ¶86). These
excerpts of Gallagher are consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which
briefly mentions the existence of 3GPP procedures that are applied in the
case of lower layer faults. Spec. 8-9.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and, therefore, we sustain
that rejection.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, 22-24, and 26.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 20.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj