Ex Parte Sridhar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12854405 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/854,405 08/11/2010
48116 7590 04/04/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kamakshi Sridhar
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.
807498-US-NP LUTZ
201171U
EXAMINER
LIU,BENH
7725
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAMAKSHI SRIDHAR and JAMES P. SEYMOUR
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
Technology Center 2400
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to performing load balancing in a
wireless extended self-organizing network (extended SON), and monitoring
network health status by collecting network measurement data and
identifying network nodes that require policy adjustment. Based on the
network measurement data, network and/or user policies are automatically
adjusted and policy updates are disseminated by a policy and charging rule
function module to a packet gateway (PGW) as well as to one or more non-
PGW network nodes (i.e., base stations, mobility management entity (MME)
nodes, and radio network controller (RNC) nodes). The automated policy
updates are locally enforced at the nodes that receive the updates, rather than
solely at the PGW node. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of automatically adjusting and locally enforcing
policies for network load balancing in a wireless extended self-
organizing network (extended SON), comprising:
collecting network measurement data;
determining a network health state by analyzing the
collected measurement network data in conjunction with
network topology information;
identifying one or more policy updates as a function of the
determined network health state;
disseminating the one or more policy updates to a packet
gateway (PGW) node and at least one non-PGW node in the
network; and
2
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
locally enforcing the one or more policy updates at the
PGW node and the at least one non-PGW node to balance
network traffic load in the extended SON.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ramankutty US 2010/0299419 Al Nov. 25, 2010
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ramankutty.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Ramankutty discloses the limitations of "disseminating the one or more
policy updates to a packet gateway (PGW) node and at least one non-PGW
node in the network; and locally enforcing the one or more policy updates at
the PGW node and the at least one non-PGW node" as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, with respect to claim 1, contrary to the Examiner's
finding, Ramankutty teaches that policies are used by the management
server, and not the non-PGW network nodes (App. Br. 5). According to
Appellants, there is no mention in Ramankutty of the policy update itself
being transmitted to any node other than the PGW node (App. Br. 5).
3
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. While Appellants
address paragraph 40 of Ramankutty, the Examiner in the Final Action also
pointed to paragraph 44 (Final Act. 3). While we agree with Appellants
(App. Br. 5---6) that the management server 160 uses statistical data to
calculate metrics that can be used in policies to manage and optimize the
network (para. 40), we do not agree with Appellants that policy updates are
not transmitted to a non-PGW network node. Ramankutty discloses that
once an optimization (i.e., policy) has been identified instructions are carried
to other network devices (para. 40) including configuration files wherein the
configuration files include policies to perform optimizations at a network
device itself (i.e., at the non-PGW node) (para. 44) (see Final Act. 3).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Ramankutty discloses
"disseminating the one or more policy updates to a packet gateway (PGW)
node and at least one non-PGW node in the network; and locally enforcing
the one or more policy updates at the PGW node and the at least one non-
PGW node," and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants
present similar arguments for claim 12 as those presented for claim 1 (App.
Br. 10-11). We affirm the Examiner's rejection ofclaim 12 forthe same
reasons as those presented for claim 1.
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Appellants argue that Ramankutty
does not teach WCDMA (App. Br. 7-8, 11). The Examiner responds that
the UMTS network (see para. 4) mentioned in Ramankutty is a term in the
art used synonymously with a WCDMA network (Ans. 8). Appellants do
not contest this finding in their Reply Brief. We agree with the Examiner's
finding because one skilled in the art would readily recognize that
"WCDMA is also referred to as UMTS - the two terms are effectively
4
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
interchangeable" (see http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/
term.php?gid=104, last visited 3/27 /2016). Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner's rejections of claims 4 and 15.
With respect to the rejections of claims 8-10, 19, and 20, Appellants
assert that the Examiner's cited paragraphs do not disclose the claimed
limitations (App. Br. 8-12). We adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Answer (Ans. 8-10) without having to repeat them herein. Appellants
repeat the same arguments in the Reply Brief but do not specifically rebut
the Examiner's findings and provide any explanation why these findings are
in error. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of these claims.
Appellants do not specifically argue the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7,
11, 13, 14, and 16-18 (App. Br. 7, 11) other than by virtue of their
dependency from claims 1 and 12, and thus, we also affirm the Examiner's
rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Ramankutty discloses the
limitations of "disseminating the one or more policy updates to a packet
gateway (PGW) node and at least one non-PGW node in the network; and
locally enforcing the one or more policy updates at the PGW node and the at
least one non-PGW node" as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
affirmed.
5
Appeal2014-006056
Application 12/854,405
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
6