Ex Parte Shetty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13447926 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/447,926 04/16/2012
28005 7590 08/02/2016
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Manoj Shetty
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.
4677a 1189
EXAMINER
CASCA, FRED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
docketing@mbhb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANOI SHETTY, SACHIN R. V ARGANTW AR,
SIDDHARTH S. OROSKAR, ASHVINI G. CANJEEVARAM,
and DEVESHKUMAR RAI
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447,926 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-8 and 11-20. Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as
depending from a rejected base claim but indicated as allowable. (Appeal
Br. l; Final Action 15.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Sprint Spectrum L.P. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to management of wireless
communications, and specifically to scanning sectors. A mobile station will
scan for sectors in its "remaining" set. The sectors in this set are sorted by
distance from the mobile device, and the remaining set scan occurs in the
sorted order. (Spec. Abstract, 2:6-7, 6:3-19, 7:2-21.)
Representative Claim
Claim l is representative:
1. In a mobile station, a method comprising:
storing in data storage of the mobile station a list of
wireless coverage sectors and their respective locations;
determining a geographic location of the mobile station;
sorting wireless coverage sectors of the list in order of
distance between their locations and the determined mobile
station location, so as to produce a sorted list of wireless
coverage sectors; and
scanning for pilot signals from the wireless coverage
sectors of the sorted list, in the order sorted.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5-8, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Corbett et al. (US 6,351,642 Bl; Feb. 26,
2002), Kim (US 2008/0039082 Al; Feb. 14, 2008), and Jovanovic (US
2008/0160998 Al; July 3, 2008). (Final Action 2-7.)
The Examiner rejects claims 2--4 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Corbett, Kim, Jovanovic, and Applicant's Admitted
Prior Art. (Final Action 7-11.)
2
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corbett, Kim, Jovanovic, and Hunzinger (US
2002/0142772 Al; Oct. 3, 2002.) (Final Action 11-14.)
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Corbett, Kim, Jovanovic, Hunzinger, and Borislow (US
2007/0189271 Al; Aug. 16, 2007.) (Final Action 14--15.)
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Corbett, Kim,
and Jovanovic teaches or suggests "sorting wireless coverage sectors of the
list in order of distance between their locations and the determined mobile
station location" and "scanning for pilot signals from the wireless coverage
sectors of the sorted list, in the order sorted," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments as presented in the Appeal
Brief, pages 3-10, and the Reply Brief, pages 3-10. We have reviewed the
Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are
unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from
which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Final Act. 2-20; Ans. 3-20. However, we
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
Corbett and Kim
Corbett relates to handoff in a CDMA system in which a list of
neighbor cells is stored in a mobile station. (Corbett Abstract; 5: 13-30.)
3
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
The Examiner finds that Corbett teaches or suggests the subject matter of
claim 1, excepting that: "Corbett does not explicitly disclose sorting wireless
coverage cells/sectors of the list, ... and Corbett does not specifically
disclose the scanning is the scanning of [a] sorted list in the order listed."
(Final Action 2-3.) Kim relates to cell selection in a network, which uses
intensity of signals from the cells and determines whether cells are selectable
as target cells. (Kim Abstract; i-f 13.) The Examiner finds that, "Kim
discloses sorting wireless coverage cells/sectors of the list, so as to produce a
sorted list ... and Kim further discloses the scanning is the scanning of [a]
sorted list in the order listed." (Final Action 3.)
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by overstating the teachings
of the Corbett and Kim combination. (Appeal Br. 4--5; Reply Br. 4--5.)
Thus, the Appellants argue that the rejection is flawed because, "the
combination of Corbett/Kim still fails to suggest in a mobile station,
scanning sectors in sorted order of distance between their locations and the
mobile station location." (Reply Br. 5.) However, the Examiner does not
indicate that the combination of Corbett and Kim suggests scanning by
sorted order of distance, but rather that the combination teaches or suggests
the sorting of sectors into a sorted list and the scanning of the sorted list.
(Final Action 3; Answer 5.) We do not find in Appellants' arguments
regarding the Examiner's findings regarding Corbett and Kim a basis to
overturn the rejection because, as discussed below, the Examiner relies on
the full combination of references, including Jovanovic, for teaching or
suggesting the disputed limitation.
4
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
Corbett, Kim, and Jovanovic
Jovanovic relates to identification of handoff candidates for a mobile
station in a CDMA system. (Jovanovic Abstract, i-fi-f l-2.) The Examiner
finds that Jovanovic's disclosure, including in Figure 6, of the calculation of
the distance of each identified sectors to the mobile station and use of that
information to find the closest sector teaches or suggests to one of ordinary
skill using the distance of each sector relative to the mobile station as the
sort order of the combination of Corbett and Kim. (Final Action 3--4, 16-19;
Answer 11-12, 19-20.)
Appellants argue that Figure 6 does not disclose a sorted list of sectors
in order of distance from the mobile station, but is rather "a patent
draftsperson's illustration" and that the ordering of the sectors in Figure 6 is
happenstance. (Appeal Br. 5---6.) Appellants further argue that in Jovanovic,
"it is perfectly possible that the network according to Jovanovic could
simply select the sector that has the lowest indicated distance ... without
engaging in any sorting of the sectors whatsoever." (Reply Br. 7.) Whether
Jovanovic explicitly discloses sorting, however, we find that the
combination of Corbett and Kim teach sorting of sectors and scanning in the
sorted order, and agree with the Examiner that "[t]he important point of
Jovanovic is determining handoff candidate based on the distance of sector
closest to the mobile station." (Answer 19.)
Appellants further argue that "the Examiner did not give sufficient
weight to the invention of claim 1 as a whole" (Appeal Br. 4) and that
insufficient weight was given to "the fact that the claimed invention
integrally involves scanning for pilot signals from the wireless coverage
sectors in the sorted order of distance of the wireless coverage sectors from
5
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
the geographic location of the mobile station." (Id. at 5.) We evaluate
whether the claim as a whole would have been obvious to an ordinarily-
skilled artisan in light of the proffered combination of the prior art,
accounting for "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007)(noting also that, "[ c ]ommon sense teaches, however, that
familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in
many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of
multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." (Id. at 420.)) Appellants
correctly note that an obviousness rejection cannot be supported by a mere
demonstration that each of the limitations was known independently in the
art. (Appeal Br. 3--4, citing KSR 550 U.S. at 398.) However, the Examiner
has provided a discussion of motivations to combine the prior art (Final
Action 3-4, Ans. 3-5) and Appellants have not rebutted these motivations.
Appellants further have not presented evidence sufficient to show that
combining the prior art was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants presented
evidence that any of incorporations of known limitations yielded more than
expected results.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
prior art combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
6
Appeal2015-000323
Application 13/447 ,926
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Corbett, Kim, and Jovanovic teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 6. Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 11-18 were not separately
argued and thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims.
We additionally find no error in the rejections of claims 19 and 20, rejected
over the combination of Corbett, Kim, Jovanovic, and Hunzinger and argued
on the same grounds. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-8 and
11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
7