Ex Parte Hershey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 201612687673 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/687,673 01114/2010 62204 7590 03/10/2016 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING) ATTN: Brandon, 59W - 105U 1 RIVER ROAD SCHENECTADY, NY 12345 John Erik Hershey 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. 238115-1/MAN (GELC:0035) 1997 EXAMINER HUYNH, CHUCK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2016 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): vivian.brandon@ge.com rlt@zpspatents.com docket@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN ERIK HERSHEY, JOHN ANDERSON FERGUS ROSS, MICHAEL JAMES HARTMAN, and RICHARD LOUIS ZINSER Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-23, which are all pending claims. See Brief2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure is directed to "methods and systems of managing vertical handoffs in a wireless communication network." Abstract. Claims 1, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A method of managing a communication in a wireless communication network, the method comprising: analyzing a usage pattern of a wireless device in the wireless communication network, utilizing a processor coupled to the wireless communication network; predicting a decreased signal quality segment in a link in the wireless communication network based on the usage pattern, utilizing the processor, wherein the predicted decreased signal quality segment comprises one or more of a location estimate and a time estimate of the usage pattern of the wireless device; and controlling a vertical handoff of the wireless device based on the predicted decreased signal quality segment, utilizing the processor. References and Rejections Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonta (US 6,097,953; Aug. 1, 2000) and Kim (US 8,064,911 B2; Nov. 22, 2011). Final Action 4. Claims 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bonta, Kim, and Dias (US 2007 /0265001 Al; Nov. 15, 2007). Final Action 8. 2 Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Action 2-12; Answer 12-21) as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Independent Claim 1 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because "none of the cited references, either alone or in hypothetical combination, discloses using prediction of a decreased signal quality segment to control handoffs." Brief 9. Particularly, Appellants contend that, "because the pattern recognition processes of Bonta only occur when calls terminate improperly, no prediction of decreased signal quality in an ongoing communication link is disclosed in Bonta." Id. Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that "Bonta does [teach] the prediction of decreased signal quality to control handoffs" (Answer 14), because Bonta discloses "measurement data is saved as a record of contributing factors leading to the drop call. The data is compared with other drop call records to find a correlation or pattern that can be monitored by future call processing." Bonta 3 :41--45. Bonta discloses the measurement data is captured "prior to signal degradation (i.e.[,] in the window of time prior to the connection falling below a signal quality threshold such as bit error rate BER)" in order to "better analyze the trend of the conditions leading up to poor signal quality or bad handoff decisions." Bonta 4:21-24, 32-33. Bonta further discloses this data is used with "monitoring handoff algorithms to force an emergency preemptive 3 Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 handoff to occur based on a pattern match of those saved conditions." Bonta 4:38--40. Accordingly, we agree with Examiner that Bonta-modified with Kim's teaching of vertical handoffs (see Kim Abstract}--teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Answer 14--15. B. Independent Claims 12 and 19 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 12 and 19, because "Bonta fails to disclose 'determining a point where inefficient vertical handoffs have occurred ... wherein the point comprises a time estimate,' ... or a 'processor configured to predict one or more points having reduced signal quality parameters, wherein the points are a function of time."' Brief 10. Particularly, Appellants argue that, in contrast to the claims, "Bonta' s pattern of signal quality is not detected in the context of any particular time point," because "the techniques of Bonta are not associated with any particular absolute usage time but instead rely on signal quality patterns that occur at a relative time before a good or bad handoff." Id. We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner that Bonta teaches or suggests the disputed limitations, because "Bonta discloses analyzing conditions leading up to predicted poor signal quality or a bad handoff decision (Col[.] 4, lines 4 Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 30-33), and how the prediction is based on a measured time window leading up to the degradation of signal quality (Col[.] 4, lines 20-24)." Answer 16- 17. We agree with the Examiner that a "point [which] comprises a time estimate" (claim 12) and "points [which] are a function of time" (claim 19) broadly but reasonably encompass Bonta's data captured in a "window of time" and used in controlling handoffs. Id.; see also Bonta 4:36-40. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not challenge, that Bonta's "degradation point" is tantamount to each of the recited points relating to time. See Answer 16; see also Bonta 5:24--54. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bonta teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of independent claims 12 and 19. C. Combination of Banta and Kim Appellants argue that, with "regard to the outstanding rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 19 over the combination of Kim and Bonta, ... the Examiner has erred in combining these references because Kim teaches against the combination." 1 Brief 12. Appellants cite to the Background section of Kim in support of their teaching away argument. See Brief 12-13 (referring to Kim cols. 2 and 3). We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive because, although Kim may disclose concerns relating to vertical and horizontal handoffs (e.g., the "ping-pong effect"), Kim does not discourage the solution claimed by 1 We note independent claim 12 is rejected over the combination of Kim, Bonta, and Dias; however, Appellants' arguments focus on Kim and Bonta. See Brief 12, 14. 5 Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 Appellants. See Answer 15; see also Jn re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the alternatives). Rather, we agree with the Examiner that "it would have been obvious to modify some of said cellular bases stations in Banta with Kim's WLAN base stations and still be able to perform the signal strength analysis with the common goal of preventing the Ping-Pong effect of excessive back and forth handovers." Answer 21; see also Answer 18-21; Bonta 8:49-53; Kim 2:38-39. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent claims 1, 12, and 19. Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, and 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. See Brief 7. The Examiner relies on the findings in Bonta and Kim discussed above for the limitations inherited by dependent claims 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 23, which the Examiner rejects as obvious. See Answer 21; see also Brief 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-23 are 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 )(iv). 6 Appeal2014-004696 Application 12/687,673 AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation