Ex Parte Hamalainen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14434489 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/434,489 04/09/2015
11051 7590 07/03/2018
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nokia Technologies Oy
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seppo Olavi Hamalainen
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.
089229.01015 6413
EXAMINER
GELIN, JEAN ALLAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
ipgeneraltyc@squirepb.com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEPPO OLA VI HAMALAINEN, VELI-MATTI TEITTINEN,
HAIT AO TANG, KAISA V ARONEN, P ASI KARI SEITTENRANTA,
and RAULI WHANI P ARKKALI
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Introduction
The invention is directed to a:
method in a communications network comprising: receiving at
least one of a) usage condition information relating to one or
more usage conditions of a user equipment and b) network
performance information; and using said received information to
cause a change in one or more parameters which individually
controls a or said user equipment, said parameters being radio
resource management parameters. The radio resource
management parameter may be used directly or indirectly to
control radio resource management of a UE [user equipment].
For example the radio resource management parameter may be
used in order to determine information used to control the radio
resource management in the UE.
Specification 2.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method in a communication network comprising:
receiving at least one of a) usage condition information relating to one
or more usage conditions of a user equipment, and b) network performance
information; and
using said received information to cause a change in one or more
subscription profile parameters which control radio resource management
for said user equipment.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1---6 and 8-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Thakolsri (European Patent Application EP 2 434
826 Al; published March 28, 2012) and Lim (US Patent Application
Publication 2013/0028172 Al; published January 31, 2013). Final Action
2-7.
2
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's
positions, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 24, 2017), the Reply
Brief (filed September 13, 2017), the Answer (mailed July 13, 2017), and
the Final Action (mailed August 9, 2016) for the respective details.
The Examiner finds that Thakolsri discloses claim 1 's invention with
the exception that "Thakolsri does not specifically teach change in one or
more subscription profile parameters which control radio resource
management for said user equipment." Final Action 3. Appellants agree
with the Examiner that Thakolsri is silent regarding changing any
subscription profile parameters." Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner relies upon
Lim to address Thakolsri' s deficiency and finds "Lim teaches
the AAA[authentication, authorization and accounting]/HSS[home
subscriber server] changes the subscription profile of the user of the UE
0100 stored in the HSS to set a SIPTO [selected IP traffic offload]
permission field in the subscription profile of the UE 0100 to Refuse to
indicate that the user prefers IFOM [IP Flow Mobility] to SIPTO." Final
Action 3 (citing Lim, paragraph 167).
Appellants argue that Lim fails to cure Thakolsri' s deficiency because
Lim recites, "it is assumed that the UE notifies the network of the preference
between IFOM and SIPTO. However, the preference to IFOM over SIPTO
can also be stored in a subscription profile of the network." Appeal Brief 9
(citing Lim, paragraph 167) (emphasis not in original). Appellants conclude
"a user preference of IFOM to SIPTO stored in a subscription profile as
provided in Lim does not equate to 'one or more subscription profile
parameters which control radio resource management for said user
equipment,' as recited in the independent claims." Appeal Brief 9-10.
3
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Claim 1 requires a method in a communication network comprising
receiving at least one of a usage condition and a network performance
information. The claim limitation does not specify where the information
originates. Accordingly, Lim discloses within a communication network,
receiving from a UE, usage condition information relating to usage
conditions of a UE. See Lim, paragraph 167. Lim discloses that the UE' s
preference can also be stored in the subscription profile of the network, but
does not make the storage a requirement. See Lim paragraph 167.
Claim 1 additionally requires using the received information to cause
a change in the subscription profile parameters that controls the radio
resource management for the UE. The limitation does not specify which
element of the method uses the received information to change the
subscription profile parameters. Also, Appellants disclose in the
Specification on page 8, lines 18-20 that, "[i]t should be appreciated that
radio resource management may comprise one or more of traffic steering,
load balancing, admission control, load control, packet scheduling and the
like."
Lim discloses:
[W]hen the UE 0100 informs the PDN-GW 0104 that it wants to
use IFOM, the PDN-GW 0104 notifies the AAA/HSS of the
intention of the UE 0100. The AAA/HSS changes the
subscription profile of the user of the UE 0100 stored in the HSS
to set a SIPTO permission field in the subscription profile of the
UE 0100 to Refuse to indicate that the user prefers IFOM to
SIPTO.
Lim, paragraph 167; see Final Action 3--4, Answer 3, Appeal Brief 9.
Subsequently, Lim discloses using the received information and
changing the subscription profile of the UE via the PDN-GW and
AAA/HSS, as required in claim 1. Lim, paragraph 167. Accordingly, we
4
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
agree with the Examiner in finding that the claimed invention would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the Thakolsri/Lim
combination. See Final Action 4.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's findings are incorrect
because, "as described in paragraph [0008] of Lim, SIPTO merely enables
user equipment to offload to another PDN-GW based upon the location of
the user equipment, rather than being based upon 'usage condition
information' or 'network performance information."' Reply Brief 4--5. We
do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive because Lim discloses the 31st
embodiment of the invention in paragraph 167 and Appellants have not
made it clear how paragraph 8 relates to this embodiment. We sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue claim 2 is patentable over the Thakolsri/Lim
combination because "the quality utility function of Thakolsri discloses that
this function indicates the quality perceived by the user, not the user
equipment." Appeal Brief 10-11. We do not find Appellants' argument
persuasive. There is no patentable distinction between the quality perceived
by the user and the quality perceived or experienced by the equipment
because the user's perception is entwined with the user equipment operation.
We also do not find persuasive Appellants' argument that "a condition
related to the channel has no relation to one or more traffic related
conditions" because Appellants provided no explanation why the two are not
related. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
(attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a
prima facie case).
Appellants argue that claim 3 is patentable over the Thakolsri/Lim
combination because "[t]he discussion of 'a perceived quality changes with
5
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
respect to the network/application performance metric' in Thakolsri is not
related to the invention of Thakolsri." Appeal Brief 11. The Examiner
finds, "Thakolsri teaches when the channel quality condition is changing
over time drastically, the user will experience a drastic change of video
quality and may be annoyed while watching the video. This is because
when the channel quality condition is getting poor, the optimizer will not
give any network resources to the user ([0034])." Answer 4. Appellants did
not address the Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do
not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's
findings.
Appellants argue that claim 4 is patentable over the Thakolsri/Lim
combination because "the Office Action argued that Thakolsri discloses this
limitation by reciting 'perceived quality changes with respect to the
network/application performance metric (e.g. data rate, packet loss, PSNR).'
However, the Office Action did not address these parameters in terms of one
or more usage conditions." Appeal Brief 12. The Examiner finds,
"Thakolsri further teaches when the channel quality is very good,
the optimizer will give a higher priority for network resource allocation to
this user, and hence the service quality perceived by this user would be good
or even very good ([0034])." Answer 5. Appellants did not address the
Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue that "Claim 5 further recites 'wherein the radio
resource management comprises at least one of: traffic steering, load
balancing, admission control, load control, and packet scheduling for said
user equipment."' Appeal Brief 12. Appellants contend, "[r]egarding
claim 4, the Office Action argued that Thakolsri discloses this limitation by
6
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
reciting 'perceived quality changes with respect to the network/application
performance metric (e.g. data rate, packet loss, PSNR).' However, the
Office Action did not address these parameters in terms of one or more
usage conditions." Appeal Brief 12-13.
The Examiner finds:
Lim teaches the MME 0102 can recognize the location of the UE
0100 necessary to decide on the best timing of triggering the
offload. When detecting that the UE 0100 can be offloaded, the
MME 0102 sends a signal of such an intention to the eNB 0107
through a signaling path 80109. The reason for the MME 0102
to trigger such offload is that the cellular communications
operator detects that the consumption of the radio resources
reaches a constraining point and thinks of allocating part of the
resources of the UE to a PDN-GW capable of transmitting data
packets from the UE to the global communication network 013
without going through many networks of the cellular
communications operator to release the resources, but it is not
limited thereto ([001 OJ).
Answer 5---6.
Appellants did not address the Examiner's additional findings in the
Reply Brief. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree
with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue "[ c ]laim 6 further recites 'wherein the traffic
steering comprises at least one of: selection of radio access technology for
idle mode camping and steering said user equipment from one radio access
technology to another.' However, the Office Action did not directly address
these features. For example, the Office Action did not mention traffic
steering, idle mode camping, or steering user equipment." Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches a set of possible parameters
abstracted from the protocol layers representing the set of candidate
operation modes ([0054])." Answer 6. Appellants did not address the
7
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 8 further recites 'further comprising said
change in said one or more subscription profile parameters in a subscription
profile parameters database." Appeal Brief 14. Appellants contend, "the
Office Action did not directly address these features. For example, the
Office Action did not mention subscription profile parameters database.
Moreover, the cited prior art does not mention subscription profile
parameters database." Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds, "Lim teaches
the subscription profile of the user of the UE 0100 is stored in the HSS (i.e.,
the HSS inherently includes a database [0167])." Answer 6. Appellants did
not address the Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do
not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's
findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 9 further recites 'wherein said using
comprises using said usage condition information and said network
performance information.' However, the Office Action did not directly
address these features." Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri
teaches optimizing the usage of the limited network resources by taking the
change of temporal video quality into account [0038], [0059])." Answer 7.
Appellants did not address the Examiner's additional findings in the Reply
Brief. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 10 further recites 'wherein said using
comprises determining if said usage condition information and/ or said
network performance information satisfies a requirement and if said
information satisfies said requirement causing said change.' However, the
8
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Office Action did not directly address these features. For example, the
Office Action did not mention a requirement." Appeal Brief 15. The
Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches optimizing the usage of the limited
network resources and parameters required to distribute data to the user
terminal [0059], [0062]-[0063])." Answer 7. Appellants did not address the
Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 11 further recites 'wherein said
requirement comprises one or more of falling within a range, falling outside
a range, exceeding a threshold, meeting a threshold and falling below a
threshold.' However, the Office Action did not directly address these
features." Appeal Brief 15. Appellants contend, "Moreover, the cited prior
art does not mention one or more of falling within a range, falling outside a
range, exceeding a threshold, meeting a threshold and falling below a
threshold." Appeal Brief 16. The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches an
optimization to find the resource allocation which gives the maximum
quality while at the same time ensuring that the temporal quality change
does not exceed a certain threshold ([0062]-[0063])." Answer 7-8.
Appellants did not address the Examiner's additional findings in the Reply
Brief. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[c]laim 12 further recites 'comprising receiving a
plurality of said usage condition information and/or said network
performance information, said plurality of information being of different
types, and determining for said information of said different types if said
respective type of information satisfies a respective requirement.' However,
the Office Action did not directly address these features" Appeal Brief 16.
9
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
The Examiner finds:
Thakolsri teaches checking whether the available resources are
sufficient to serve all sessions ... , in a next step, there are obtained
all necessary information to perform the optimization, such as
the number of users (or terminals), the app. Layer info (i.e. the
quality utility function), and possibly also the abstracted
PHY /MAC layers information, which may be used to take into
account also the channel condition into the optimization. In the
embodiments so far it has only been mentioned that the quality
measure is determined based on the quality utility function which
has as an input the data rate, but there may further also be taken
into account the channel condition, either as a separate parameter
when calculating the quality measure, or as an input parameter
of the quality utility function ([0061 ]-[0062]).
Answer 8.
Appellants did not address the Examiner's additional findings in the
Reply Brief. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree
with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[c]laim 13 further recites 'wherein said plurality of
different types of information are provided with a priority and using said
priority when using said information to cause said change.' However, the
Office Action did not directly address these features." Appeal Brief 17. The
Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches channel quality is changing over time
drastically and the optimizer gives a higher priority for network resource
allocation ([0034], [0036])." Answer 9. Appellants did not address the
Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 14 further recites 'comprising selecting a
subset of said different types of information to use to cause said change.'
However, the Office Action did not directly address these features." Appeal
Brief 17-18. The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches channel quality is
10
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
changing over time drastically and the optimizer gives a higher priority for
network resource allocation ([0034], [0036])." Answer 9. Appellants did
not address the Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do
not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's
findings.
Appellants argue, "[c]laim 15 further recites 'usage condition
information is determined using one or more of probing, tracing, charging,
deep packet inspection, and performance management techniques.'
However, the Office Action did not directly address these features." Appeal
Brief 18. The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri teaches determining the resource
allocation in such a way that the quality fluctuation perceived by a user is
limited and the limit is taken into account when performing the resource
allocation ([0033]-[0034])." Appeal 9-10. Appellants did not address the
Examiner's additional findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[ c ]laim 16 further recites 'receiving information to
trigger a traffic steering action.' However, the Office Action did not directly
address this feature." Appeal Brief 19. The Examiner finds, "Thakolsri
teaches that change is trigger based on network performance metric ([0032]-
[0033])." Answer 10. Appellants did not address the Examiner's additional
findings in the Reply Brief. We do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants argue, "[c]laim 17 further recites that said program
comprising computer executable instructions, which when run on a
processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1. For the
reasons similar to those noted above for claim 1, the combination of
11
Appeal2017-011537
Application 14/434,489
Thakolsri in view of Lim also does not disclose or suggest claim 1 7."
Appeal Brief 19. We did not find Appellants arguments for claim 1
persuasive of Examiner's error. Appellants present no additional reasoning
for why the obviousness rejection of claim 17 is erroneous other than claim
17's dependence upon claim 1. Accordingly, we do not find Appellants'
arguments persuasive and agree with the Examiner's findings.
Appellants' arguments for independent claims 18-20 are the same as
the arguments for independent claim 1. Appeal Brief 19-26, see Answer 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection for claims
18-20 for the same reasons as claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-20 is
affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
AFFIRMED
12