Ex Parte Hershey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

12687673 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

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