Ex Parte Balakrishnan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 14, 2019

14844241 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/844,241 09/03/2015
81310 7590 06/18/2019
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Swaminathan Balakrishnan
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
8888-50201 1038
EXAMINER
MANOHARAN,MUTHUSWAMYGANAPATHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2019 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SWAMINATHAN BALAKRISHNAN,
SINDHU SIVASANKARAN NAIR, TARIK TABET, and
SARMA V. V ANGALA
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is "Apple Inc."
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention "relates to ... optimizing circuit switched fallback
[(CSFB)] among wireless communications devices." Spec. ,r 2.
[W]hen a UE is on a CS network ... and is scanning for L TE
networks ... [, and] finds an LTE network that doesn't support
the eCSFB format, then ... consequently the UE ... "bars" that
particular L TE network for a specified time duration ( referred
to as Long Bar Timer duration), ... [such] that the UE remains
... on the CS network[] for that duration.
See id. 1179; see also id. n 4 ("Long Term Evolution (L TE)"), 5 ("circuit
switched (CS)"), 6 ("CS fallback (CSFB)"), 8 ("wireless user equipment
device (UE)"). "In some embodiments [ of the invention], ... instead of the
UE waiting for the Long Bar Timer (LBT) to expire ... , the UE ... may
scan for LTE cells if ... in a 'driving' or non-stationary state for at least a
specified time period." Id. 1180.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A wireless communication device comprising:
an antenna;
radio circuitry coupled to the antenna; and
a processing element coupled to the radio;
wherein the antenna, the radio circuitry and the processing
element are configured to interoperate to cause the wireless
communication device to:
while communicating on a first network operating
according to a first radio access technology (RAT), and
prior to making an attempt to acquire another network:
scan for other networks operating according to a
second RAT;
2
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
identify, resulting from the scan for the other
networks, a second network of the other networks,
and recognize that the second network does not
support circuit switched fallback (CSFB);
bar the second network for a specified time
duration responsive to determining that the second
network does not support CSFB; and
determine whether to begin scanning for additional
networks operating according to the second RAT
prior to an expiration of the specified time
duration, based at least on a motion status of the
wireless communication device during a specified
time span.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Souissi et al.
(US 2012/0258715 Al; Oct. 11, 2012) ("Souissi") and Nayak et al.
(US 2016/0057661 Al; Feb. 25, 2016) ("Nayak"). Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Souissi, Nayak, and Tsai et al. (US 2015/0029949 Al;
Jan. 29, 2015) ("Tsai"). Final Act. 5---6.
CLAIMS 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, AND 20
Claim 1 is representative of claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 2 We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
2 The Appeal Brief addresses dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 under a
separate heading. App. Br. 11. Those arguments are, however,
substantively identical to the arguments addressed herein for claim 1.
Compare id. at 8 ( arguing claim 1 's scanning "prior to an expiration of the
3
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
We briefly explain the Souissi-Nayak combination, and particularly
the proposed UE, before turning to the arguments. The combination's UE:
scans a newly entered location (for networks) only if either designated as
having an upgraded network or undesignated as to having/lacking an
upgraded network (Souissi ,r,r 41, 49, 52); enters an undesignated location,
scans, and designates the location as lacking CSFB in response to the scan
(Na yak ,r,r 97, 115); and does not scan again unless either in the location at a
predetermined time to update the designation (Na yak ,r,r 118-121) or newly
entering another location that satisfies one of the above conditions for
scanning (Souissi ,r,r 41, 49, 52). Final Act. 2-3, 6-8; Ans. 3-7; see, e.g.,
Final Act. 6 ("avoid unnecessary scanning operation" and "check for
enhanced services"), 7 ("Souissi is looking for 4G service .... Nayak
teaches ... [to] recognize ... support [for] ... CSFB."); Ans. 6-7 ("Souissi
... [teaches] avoiding unnecessary scanning .... Nayak ... [teaches]
waiting for a predetermined time [to update the designation ofJ the network
[that] does not support CSFB.").
A first issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claimed
"identify, resulting from the scan for ... networks, a second network ... [as]
not support[ing] circuit switched fallback (CSFB); [and] bar the second
network for a specified time duration" (herein "claimed barring").
App. Br. 6-7 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants contend
"barring" is specific to a network and, therefore, the Examiner cannot read
the claimed barring on the Souissi-Nayak combination's decision to stop all
specified time duration" ( emphasis omitted) against Souissi ,r 58) and id. at
11 ( arguing claim 3 's scanning "prior to expiration of the specified time
duration" ( emphasis omitted) against Souissi ,r 58).
4
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
scanning when a location is known to lack network upgrades. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants specifically contend:
The respective operations of barring a network and scanning for
networks are well understood in the art. While scanning for
networks may be suspended/not performed as a result of barring
a network, ... [b Jarring the identified network represents
additional action-specific to the identified network-
performed subsequent to scanning for networks and identifying
the network.
App. Br. 7 ( emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded for each of two
reasons.
First, Appellants do not present a meaningful description of the
claimed barring for comparison against the Souissi-Nayak
combination. Rather, Appellants state a "bar" is understood in the art as
including a post-scan action specific to the barred network. App. Br. 7.
Appellants provide no description, much less evidence, of such an
action. The argument is, therefore, a mere assertion that the claimed barring
distinguishes over the Souissi-Nayak combination. Such assertions are
unpersuasive. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
( attorney arguments and conclusory statements, unsupported by factual
evidence, are entitled to little probative value); In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant.").
Second, contrary to disclosing a "bar" as a post-scan action specific to
a barred network ( as argued), Appellants' Specification describes a UE' s
"'bar[]"' of a network as merely a post-scan decision to remain on the
current network for a preset duration. Spec. ,r 79; supra 2 (invention's
description). Namely, the UE scans for networks, determines the CSFB
5
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
upgrade is unavailable, consequently remains on the current network, and
does not scan for networks until either a preset duration lapses or moving to
another location (where other networks become available). Id. n 79-80;
supra 2.
A second issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the claimed
"determine whether to begin scanning for additional networks ... prior to an
expiration of the specified time duration." App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis
omitted). Appellants contend Souissi does not teach the claimed "specified
time duration" inasmuch: "Souissi ... [is] related to scanning for 4G
networks based on the location and/or direction and/or speed at which the
UE is moving. For at least this reason, ... the specified time duration taught
in Souissi is different from the [ claimed] specified time duration."
Id. ( emphasis omitted). We are unpersuaded because the Examiner does not
rely on Souissi as teaching the specified time duration, but rather as showing
it would have been obvious to not scan a location designated as lacking an
upgraded network. See supra 4. The Examiner relies on Nayak as showing
it would have been obvious to designate a location via scanning and, after a
preset duration, re-scan the location to update the designation (Nayak ,r 121).
See supra 4.
A third issue is whether Nayak teaches away from the Souissi-Nayak
combination. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants contend Nayak teaches away
inasmuch the UE designates a location's network (as CSFB or non-CSFB)
for purposes of connecting to the network via a respective operating mode-
not for purposes of barring a network that lacks CSFB. Id. ( citing
Nayak ,r 59). We are unpersuaded because the arguments do not show
6
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
Nayak teaches to connect a UE and network regardless of the network's
CSFB support (i.e., regardless of lacking CSFB).
Nayak may, rather, teach a means to connect specific UE devices
(e.g., "SGLTE+GSM communication devices" (Nayak ,r 2)) and/or a means
to connect upon having decided to join a network (e.g., upon determining the
connection is needed to prevent loss of service). Moreover, even if
(arguendo) Nayak is somehow advising to always connect a UE and
approaching network regardless of CSFB support, this may be a teaching to
connect via Nayak's method in lieu of-i.e., as a preferred alternative to--
barring a network that lacks CSFB. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference
does not teach away ... if it merely expresses a general preference for an
alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage' investigation into the invention claimed.").
A fourth issue is whether Souissi teaches away from the
Souissi-Nayak combination. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants contend Souissi
teaches away inasmuch the UE detects a 4G network and then executes a
handoff to the network, "which is the exact opposite of barring the 4G
detected network." App. Br. 8 (citing Souissi ,r,r 47, 57; Fig. 3, steps 310,
315). We are unpersuaded because Souissi' s handoff of a UE to a 4G
network is part of the Souissi-Nayak combination. Supra 4. Namely, the
combination's UE scans for (and connects to) a network having a 4G or
CSFB upgrade. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain their
rejections.
7
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
CLAIMS 4, 11, AND 18
Dependent claim 4 is representative of claims 11 and 18. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4.
A dispositive issue is whether the Examiner errs in addressing the
claimed "allow ... the specified time duration to expire before scanning for
the additional networks ... , responsive to the wireless communication
device not changing its location" ( claim 4). This step narrows the base
claim's "determine whether to begin scanning for additional networks
... prior to an expiration of the specified time duration [and] based at least
on a motion status of the wireless communication device" ( claim 1 ). Taking
these limitations collectively, the claimed UE: decides, based on its motion
status, to scan or not scan before the specified time duration expires
( claim 1 ); and, as part thereof, decides to not scan until either after the
specified time duration or a change in location (claim 4). Accord Spec. ,r 80.
Appellants contend:
The [Examiner finds] Tsai [paragraph 35] teaches the above
quoted recited feature. . . . Tsai does not teach or suggest this
feature. First, Tsai is entirely silent with respect to ... [a]
communication device's motion status. Second, Tsai
... teach[ es] instead a period of time directly relating to an out-
of-service (OOS) status of the device[, not a period of time]
... used to determine when scanning should be performed by
the device .... Furthermore, Tsai [paragraph 35] links the OOS
duration to ... [an] indication that the device has moved[-not]
... responsive to the UE not changing its location[.]
App. Br. 12 (paragraphing omitted). We are unpersuaded for each of two
reasons.
8
Appeal2018-007331
Application 14/844,241
First, we find claim 4 is reached by the Souissi-Nayak combination's
UE not scanning a location that lacks an upgraded network (CSFB or
4G). See supra 4. The UE consequently does not, if remaining within such
a location (i.e., if not moving into a new location), scan until the
predetermined time to update the CSFB designation of the location.
Second, and as the Examiner finds, Tsai teaches to "reduce
unnecessary CSFB support determination when ... it is unlikely that the UE
is moving between areas with and without CSFB support" (Tsai ,r 35).
Ans. 9 ("Tsai teaches[, at paragraph 35,] waiting for a threshold period of
time ... to reduce unnecessary CSFB support determination[, because it] is
unlikely that UE is moving between areas" (emphasis omitted).). Thus, Tsai
shows it would have been obvious for a UE not to scan ("reduce unnecessary
CSFB support determination") while remaining within a location that lacks
an upgraded network ("when ... it is unlikely that the UE is moving
between areas with and without CSFB support").
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 4, 11, and 18. Accordingly, we sustain their rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9