Ex Parte Ferrato et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 21, 201511667593 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/667,593 10/11/2007 Marco Ferrato 09952.0126 2177 22852 7590 05/22/2015 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER AU, SCOTT D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARCO FERRATO, DANIELE FRANCESCHINI, PAOLO GORIA, CLAUDIO GUERRINI, ALESSANDRO TROGOLO, ENRICO ZUCCA, and ANGELA MICOCCI ____________ Appeal 2012-010912 Application 11/667,593 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before BETH Z. SHAW, CHRISTA P. ZADO, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 12–22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention is for a static simulation of a GSM network. See Spec. p. 2, l. 1. Appeal 2012-010912 Application 11/667,593 2 Claim 12 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed limitations italicized: 12. A method, implemented using at least one computer including at least one processor configured to execute instructions, for simulating a mobile telephone network with shared-access channels, the method comprising at least the steps of: simulating, using the at least one processor, a first configuration of said mobile telephone network; simulating, using the at least one processor, a second configuration of said mobile telephone network; said first and second configurations of said mobile telephone network being statistically independent one from the other; each one of said steps of simulating comprising at least the steps of: determining, using the at least one processor, a number of mobile terminals generating a packet data traffic; assigning, using the at least one processor, to a list of mobile terminals in said number of mobile terminals generating the packet data traffic, at least one shared-access channel of said mobile telephone network to be simulated; and performing, using the at least one processor, a scheduling management process of said list of mobile terminals on said shared-access channel. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barbaresi (WO 02/104055 A1; Dec. 27, 2002) and Oates (US 2004/0111502 A1; Jun. 10, 2004). Ans. 5–7. The Examiner rejected claims 13–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barbaresi, Oates, and Koo (US 2002/0193106 A1; Dec. 19, 2002). Ans. 7–8. Appeal 2012-010912 Application 11/667,593 3 ISSUES Appellants present multiple arguments as to why the Examiner has erred. We focus our discussion below on the following dispositive issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Barbaresi and Oates teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “said first and second configurations of said mobile telephone network being statistically independent one from the other,” as recited in claim 12? ANALYSIS The Examiner has not demonstrated one skilled in the art would have recognized the combination of Barbaresi and Oates teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 12. Appellants argue that “Oates’ first and second simulators 207 and 211 appear to be computer programs that simulate network behavior, and therefore, cannot be reasonably construed to constitute the claimed ‘first and second configurations of said mobile telephone network’ that are simulated using at least one processor, as recited in claim 12.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis in original). We are not persuaded by this argument because the Examiner relies on Barbaresi, not Oates alone, as teaching the first and second configurations of said mobile telephone network. Final Rej. 3. However, Appellants also argue Oates’ teaching of “different network operators having different advertising, pricing, and marketing strategies does not constitute any teaching or suggestion of being ‘statistically independent’.” App. Br. 11–12. Appellants argue “Oates teaches simulating two sets of network parameters that are dependent from one another.” App. Br. 12, citing Oates, ¶¶ 30–31. Appeal 2012-010912 Application 11/667,593 4 The Specification states “‘statistically independent’ means that two network configurations simulated in two following event-based micro- simulations are not the temporal evolution one of the other.” Spec. p. 13, ll. 9–13 (emphasis added). The Examiner finds: Barbaresi teaches the first and second configurations of said mobile telephone network (Module 42a, and Module 43a, page 7, lines 4-11 ) and in view of Oates, Oates teaches “said first and second are being statistically independent one from the other” (the network simulators 207 and 211 are likely to represent different network operators, para. 0077). Ans. 10. Although Oates’s network simulators may represent different “network operators,” none of the Final Rejection, Answer, or the cited paragraph of Oates (¶77), explains how those operators are “statistically independent” as defined by Appellants’ Specification (i.e., how the network operators teach or suggest that they are “not the temporal evolution one of the other.”). In the Answer (see Ans. 11–12), the Examiner does not respond directly to the argument that Oates’s teaches simulating two sets of network parameters that are dependent from one another. App. Br. 12. As Appellants point out, and we agree, network simulators 207 and 211 use the same selected set of network parameters as input, or use optimized network parameters that are optimised using the same data. See Reply Br. 4, App. Br. 12–13, citing Oates Fig. 2 and ¶¶ 30–31. Accordingly, we find the preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support the Examiner’s finding that claim 12 is unpatentable over the cited portions of Barbaresi and Oates. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12, or of independent claim 21, which recites a similar limitation. Because we reverse the Examiner’s Appeal 2012-010912 Application 11/667,593 5 obviousness rejection of each of independent claims 12 and 21, we also reverse the rejection of each associated dependent claim. DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 12–22. REVERSED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation