Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12657712 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/657,712
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
01/26/2010
08/02/2016
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyung Jun Lee
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.
YPF200909-0014/US
(SAMS07
CONFIRMATION NO.
4551
EXAMINER
BALAOING, ARIEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2699
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYUNG JUN LEE
Appeal2015-002143
Application 12/657 ,712
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2015-002143
Application 12/657,712
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a method for selecting a cell that
reduces no-service states in portable terminals (Spec. if 2). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of selecting a cell of a portable terminal for
connecting to a communication network, the method comprising:
setting a specific cell that satisfies a preset condition
among surrounding cells of the portable terminal as a
management cell;
performing a cell selection procedure excluding the
management cell in response to a generation of at least one of a
cell selection event or a cell reselection; and
wherein the management cell comprises at least one cell
whose communication channel state is not good due to frequency
interference and bad frame generation when intensity of a
reception signal is high.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Amerga (US 2004/0116110 Al; June 17, 2004) and
Schramm (US 2001/0046879 Al; Nov. 29, 2001) (see Final Act. 4--9).
Claims 4--6, 10-12, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Amerga, Schramm, and Kim (US
2005/0048974 Al; Mar. 3, 2005) (see Final Act. 9-12).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions.
2
Appeal2015-002143
Application 12/657,712
First Issue - Management Cell
Appellant contends the combination of Amerga and Schramm does
not teach a "management cell," which is a "specific cell that satisfies a
preset condition among surrounding cells of the portable terminal," and
"excluding the management cell ... in a cell selection event," as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 3-5). Appellant argues Amerga's subset
of detectable cells that meet the predetermined minimum signal criteria is
not a specific cell that satisfies the preset condition of having a
"communication channel state [that] is considered not good" and is excluded
from cell selection (id.). Appellant further argues setting the management
cell inherently includes storing the management cell in order for the portable
terminal to subsequently identify a cell as a management cell (Reply Br. 8-
9).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings. Appellant's
argument that the portabie terminai "subsequently identifies" a cen as a
management cell is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which
requires a cell to be identified as having a poor communication channel state
and excluded from cell selection by the terminal, but no storage or
"subsequent identification" of the management cell is required. We agree
with the Examiner's finding that Amerga identifies as least one cell (i.e., a
specific cell) that is detectable by the mobile station but falls below a
minimum signal strength (i.e., a preset condition of having a communication
channel that is not good), and thus is not added to the list of monitored cells
(i.e., excluded from the list of possible selection cells) (Ans. 4 (citing
Amerga iii! 89-90)).
3
Appeal2015-002143
Application 12/657,712
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that Amerga
fails to teach "a storage unit configured to store a management cell," as
recited in claims 7 and 13 (Reply Br. 8-9). This argument is entitled to no
consideration because it was not presented in the opening brief, and
Appellant has not shown good cause why it should be considered, as
required by our procedural rule. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2012); accord
Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been
presented in the principal brief on appeal).
Second Issue - Cell Selection
Appellant contends the combination of Amerga and Schramm does
not teach performing a cell selection procedure excluding a cell having a
"communication channel state [that] is not good due to frequency
interference and bad frame generation when intensity of a reception signai is
high," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 16-19; Reply Br. 3-7). Appellant
argues Schramm's throughput and quality of service criteria that are used to
select candidate cells during a handover process do not teach excluding a
management cell that has the claimed communication state and high signal
intensity (id.).
Appellant's contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Schramm's selection procedure takes
into account signal strength, interference, and error rate, and avoids selecting
a cell with a poor communication channel even when its signal intensity is
high (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 4--5 (citing Schramm i-fi-132-36, 39; see also i143:
selection avoids significant increase in interference level)). The Examiner
4
Appeal2015-002143
Application 12/657,712
properly states that "one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references" (Ans. 5 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981))).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that using Schramm's cell,
which has a strong signal but poor communication channel, as the excluded
management cell in Amerga's selection procedure teaches the disputed
limitations of claim 1 (Ans. 4--5).
CONCLUSION
As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Amerga and Schramm
teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1, as well as claims 7 and 13 which
are argued based on similar arguments presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 19),
and the remaining claims which are not argued separately (id.). Therefore,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims l-'20.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
5