Ex Parte Hsu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

11078162 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LIANGCHI HSU
_____________

Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-21, 24-28, and 32-35. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a communication
interface configured to transfer state information of the Radio Link Protocol
(RLP) flow and the Signaling Link Protocol (SLP) flow over a pre-
designated interface from a source entity to a target entity if an active hard
handoff condition is detected. See Spec. ¶ [0006].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method comprising:
detecting an active hard handoff condition associated with a
communication session supported by a radio link protocol (RLP) flow and a
signaling link protocol (SLP) flow; and
initiating transfer of state information of the RLP flow and the SLP
flow over a pre-designated interface from a source entity to a target entity if
an active hard handoff condition is detected,
wherein the RLP flow includes a plurality of RLP packets, and the
RLP state information includes a first sequence number corresponding to a
first segment of a next RLP packet, a second sequence number
corresponding to a next RLP packet to be received, and third sequence
number corresponding to a next RLP packet needed for sequential delivery.

Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Tinnakornsrisuphap US 2005/0266847 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Sayeedi US 2006/0072506 A1 Apr. 6, 2006
TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY STANDARD, TIA/EIA INTERIM STANDARD:
CDMA2000 HIGH RATE PACKET DATA AIR INTERFACE SPECIFICATION:
TIA/EIA/IS-856 (2000) [hereinafter TIA/EIA/IS-856].
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-21, 24-28, and 32-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tinnakornsrisuphap in
view of Sayeedi and further in view of TIA/EIA/IS-856.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
RLP Transmit Procedures cited in TIA/EIA/IS-856 cure the deficiency of
the Tinnakornsrisuphap in view of Sayeedi combination and thereby teaches
the limitation of:
wherein the RLP flow includes a plurality of RLP
packets, and the RLP state information includes a first sequence
number corresponding to a first segment of a next RLP packet,
a second sequence number corresponding to a next RLP packet
to be received, and third sequence number corresponding to a
next RLP packet needed for sequential delivery
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162

4
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-21, and 24-28.
Appellant argues that in TIA/EIA/IS-856, octets of data in a packet
are transmitted, with V(S) being an S-bit variable for all transmitted RLP
data octets and representing a sequence number of the next RLP data octet to
be transmitted (see App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3). There may be many data octets
within a packet to be transmitted. Thus, claim 1 recites “wherein the RLP
flow includes a plurality of RLP packets”; the cited portion of TIA/EIA/IS-
856 relates, not to a plurality of packets, but to a plurality of octets within a
single packet (see App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3). Appellant explains that the
3.2.5.2.1 RLP Transmit Procedures state: “The sequence number of the ith
octet in the packet (with the first octet being octet 0) is implicitly given by
SEQ+i. V(S) shall be incremented for each octet contained in the packet”
(Reply Br. 3). The Examiner appears to acknowledge this difference by
asserting that “packets are read as the RLP octets as disclosed in IS-856”
(Ans. 24).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s
assertion that the limitations do not exclude sequence numbers to be
transmitted in “one packet” ignores the limitation of a “plurality of packets”
as recited in claim 1. In the context of claim 1, claim 1 refers to a plurality
of packets and to sequences within the next packet within the flow of the
plurality of packets. Furthermore, the reference in claim 1 to the “next RLP
packet” certainly implies that there is a previous packet included within the
Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162

5
flow of the “plurality of packets,” thereby not allowing a reasonable
construction of the claim by only referring to octets within a single packet.
By interpreting the sequences within a single packet as the recited sequences
in claim 1, the Examiner ignores the limitation of “a plurality of packets.”
Thus, the Examiner did not address the limitation of a “plurality of packets.”
See Verdegaal, 814 F.2d at 631.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1,
and for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 11 and 20, and
the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-10, 12, 15-19, 21, and 24-28.
Analysis with respect to claims 32-35.
Appellant asserts that claims 32-35 have been allowed (App. Br. 2).
The Examiner noted claims 32-35 as allowed in the advisory action dated
05/28/2008 and acknowledged the status of the claims in the Appeal Brief as
correct (Ans. 2). However, the Examiner re-instituted the rejections of
claims 32-35 in the Answer (Ans. 3-23). Appellants did not address the
rejection of claims 32-35 as they appeared in the Answer even though a
Reply Brief was filed.
Accordingly, we will pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 32-35 as Appellant raised no arguments for these rejected claims in
the Answer (Ans. 3-23). We also note that none of these claims recite the
disputed limitation including the recitation of “a plurality of packets,” which
was the basis of reversing claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-21, and 24-28 as discussed
supra.

Appeal 2009-011553
Application 11/078,162

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that the RLP Transmit Procedures cited
in TIA/EIA/IS-856 cure the deficiency of the Tinnakornsrisuphap in view of
Sayeedi combination and thereby teaches the limitation of:
wherein the RLP flow includes a plurality of RLP
packets, and the RLP state information includes a first sequence
number corresponding to a first segment of a next RLP packet,
a second sequence number corresponding to a next RLP packet
to be received, and third sequence number corresponding to a
next RLP packet needed for sequential delivery
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added).

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-21, and 24-28 is
reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 32-35 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc