Ex Parte Yamine

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

13980216 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/980,216 07/17/2013 Badawi Yamine
152435 7590 12/26/2018
Sage Patent Group/Zacco
PO BOX 30789
RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789
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.
4015-8612 / P32501-US1 5291
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com
outsourcing@zacco.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BADA WI Y AMINE
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
Technology Center 2600
Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge MOORE.
Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge ENGLE.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 16, 18-20, and 22-30, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "a method in a network node for
handling neighbor cell relations in a cellular communications network."
(Abstract.) Claim 16, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on
appeal:
16. A method, in a network node, for handling neighbor cell re-
lations in a cellular communications network, the network node
serving a user equipment in a first cell associated with a first cell
site, the method comprising:
receiving an indication from the user equipment that a second
cell, associated with a second cell site, is a potential handover
candidate cell for the user equipment based on radio condition
criteria;
adding the second cell to a neighbor cell relation list of the
network node based on at least one of:
the geographical location of the second cell site;
the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to
the second cell site.
1 Appellant identifies "Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)" as the real
party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
Marsan
Magnuson et al.
Jeong et al.
THE REFERENCES
US 6,188,904 B 1
US 6,285,874 Bl
US 8,811,990 B2
THE REJECTIONS
Feb. 13, 2001
Sept. 4, 2001
Aug. 19, 2014
1. Claims 16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Magnuson and Marsan. (See Final
Act. 3-10.)
2. Claims 24 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Magnuson, Marsan, and Jeong. (See Final Act. 10-11.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant's Invention
The Specification explains that it was known in L TE networks for a
node to maintain a list of potential handover candidates, and to obtain the
candidates from handsets taking measurements of neighbor cells. (See Spec.
1:8-2: 11, 3:5-27.) The Specification further explains, however, that in such
systems a base station that is identified as a potential candidate may be
broadcasting its coverage far beyond its planned area, and that problems
may arise if such a cell is added to the list of candidate target cells. (See id.
at 3:28-33.) The inventors address that problem by applying an additional
criterion for determining whether a cell should be added to neighbor list,
where the additional criterion may be related to the geographical location of
the potential candidate. (See id. at 4: 11-5:2.)
3
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
Exemplary claim 16 recites a method for handling neighbor cell
relations in a cellular communications network in which a network node
serves a user equipment in a first cell associated with a first cell site. The
method includes (a) receiving an indication from the user equipment that a
second cell, associated with a second cell site, is a potential handover
candidate cell for the user equipment based on radio condition criteria, and
(b) adding the second cell to a "neighbor cell relation list" of the network
node, based on at least one of (i) the geographical location of the second cell
site and (ii) the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to the
second cell site.
The Prior Art and the Rejection
Magnusson "relates generally to the problem of determining the
identity of a cell" and "more particularly to the problem of determining the
true identity of a cell when only the transmission frequency and a non-
unique identity code is known." (Magnusson, Abstract.) The method
involves creating a "candidate list" that is "based on a function of various
elements e.g. distance, transmission power, cell type, and antenna
placement," ranking the cells in the candidate list, and, when a particular
frequency/code combination is detected, consulting the candidate list for the
highest ranking cell with the same frequency/code combination and
identifying that as the signal source. (Id.) In an alternative embodiment, a
"neighbor cell list" is used to create the candidate list and, if there are no
matches on that list, "the neighbors of the cells on the candidate list are also
added to the candidate list which is then checked for a match." (Id.)
Marsan concerns "a method for improving the communication
coverage in a multi-cell communication system ... which employs neighbor
4
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
cell lists." (Marsan, Abstract.) A cell site provides a communication unit
(i.e., a mobile device) within its cell with communication and a neighbor cell
list. (Id.) When the "fixed network equipment" detects that the
communication unit has entered another cell and/or needs to hand-off its
communication to another cell site but has been denied, the original cell site
sends the communication unit the neighbor cell list related to the new cell.
The communication unit can then use the new neighbor list to maintain its
communication by handing-off to cells unknown before. (Id.)
The Examiner found that "Magnuson et al. disclosed most of the
subject matter [ of independent claim 16] except for specifically teaching
wherein the at least one additional criterion is based on at least one of: the
geographical location of the second cell site; the geographical location of
other cell sites in relation to the second cell site." (Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner further found Marsan to teach that missing subject matter, and that
it would have been obvious to add the geographic location of Marsan to
Magnuson's method, "in order to improve[e] communication coverage in
multi-cell wireless communication systems." (Id. at 6 ( citing Marsan 1: 15-
17).)
Obviousness
Appellant argues the combination does not teach or suggest "a
network node serving a user equipment in a first cell that adds a second cell
to its neighbor cell relation list." (App. Br. 8.) We agree.
Consistent with the claim language, the Specification and the cited art,
we interpret "neighbor cell relation list" to be a list of handover candidate
cells. (See Claim 16 (adding a second cell to the neighbor cell relation list
upon "receiving an indication" that it is a "potential handover candidate
5
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
cell"); Spec. 1 :20-23 ("[E]ach eNodeB keeps a neighbor cell relation list of
plausible handover candidates with connectivity information as well as a
mapping between the PCI and a unique E-UTRAN cell global identifier,
ECGI."); Marsan 2:46-47 ("The neighbor cell list informs the
communication unit of other cells which are possible hand-off targets.").)
Magnusson describes a "neighbor cell list" that is "associated with the
current cell to determine which base stations receive the measurement order
from the MSC." (Magnusson 2:21-23.) However, this neighbor cell list is
"created and set manually by the system operator and remains fixed until the
operator later manually modifies the list." (Id. 2:23-25.) There is no
teaching or suggestion that Magnusson' s "neighbor cell list" is or might be
augmented as a result of receiving "an indication from the user equipment
that a second cell ... is a potential handover candidate cell ... based on
radio condition criteria," as required by claim 16.
Magnusson separately describes a "candidate list," which the
Examiner finds to correspond to the claimed "neighbor cell relation list."
(See Final Act. 5 (citing Magnusson 8:1--4); Ans. 3 (same).) The "candidate
list" is described in connection with the embodiment of Figure 7, which
"may be used alone or in combination with the previous embodiments."
(Magnusson 7:51-53.) It is explained as follows:
The first step of the present embodiment is performed when a
particular frequency/code combination is detected at a base sta-
tion 710. The system consults the neighbor cell list for this base
station and adds the cells on this neighbor cell list to a candidate
list 720. The next step is to check this candidate list, which now
consists of those cells on the neighbor cell list, for a matching
combination to the detected frequency/code combination 730.
If no match is found, the next step is to modify the candidate
list 750. Each cell in the current candidate list is consulted one
6
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
by one. Each neighbor cell list for each of these cells is then
retrieved and the cells in these neighbor cell lists are added to the
candidate list. In this way the "neighbors of the neighbors" are
added to the candidate list.
After these "neighbors of the neighbors" are added to the list
the system returns to the previous step 720 to again check this
new modified candidate list for a matching combination to the
detected frequency/code combination 730. If there is a match,
this is checked to see if there is only one single matching combi-
nation 7 40. If only one matching combination is found, it is con-
cluded that that cell was the origin of the signal 7 60. If more
than one match is found, the method fails to identify the origin
of the signal, unless some additional ( e.g. geographic)
information is also used 770. In this case you can resort to the
previous embodiment shown in FIG. 3 and choose the closest of
the matching cells.
(Magnusson 7:51-8:16.)
As described, the Figure 7 embodiment is a technique for identifying a
particular frequency/code combination. Neighbors of the first cell are added
to the candidate list and checked for a frequency/code match and, if no
match is found, more neighbors are added to the candidate list to be checked
for a match. Magnusson' s "candidate list" is, therefore, only a list of cells
that might be a frequency/code match. It is not, despite its name, a list of
possible handover candidate cells. And even if one is a frequency/code
match, Magnusson does not teach adding that cell to a "neighbor cell list."
We thus find that the combination, as formulated by the Examiner, does not
teach or suggest a node adding a cell to its neighbor cell relation list
following receipt of an indication from user equipment that the cell is a
potential handover candidate.
Claim 16 also requires "adding the second cell to a neighbor cell
relation list of the network node based on at least one of: the geographical
7
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
location of the second cell site; the geographical location of other cell sites
in relation to the second cell site." The Examiner relies on Marsan for the
geographical location of a cell site. (See Final Act. 5 ( citing Marsan 6:40-
48); January 1, 2016 Advisory Action 2 (same); Ans. 4 (same).) A review of
the cited passage of Marsan, however, reveals that it describes determining
the location of a "communication unit," i.e., a handset or UE, "to a greater
specificity than that of a cell site service coverage area." We fail to see how
this might teach or suggest using the geographical location of a candidate
cell in determining whether or not to add it to a neighbor cell relation list.
For each of these two reasons, we do not sustain the Section 103
rejection of claim 16 or of claims 18-20 and 22-30, all of which also include
the subject language. Because these issues are dispositive, we do not reach
Appellant's other arguments.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 16, 18-20, and 22-30 are reversed.
REVERSED
8
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BADA WI Y AMINE
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
Technology Center 2600
Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, AARON W. MOORE, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
CONCURRING OPINION
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
I concur in reversing based solely on the majority's discussion of
Marsan, but I respectfully disagree with respect to Magnusson.
Appellant does not dispute that Magnusson teaches "receiving an
indication from the user equipment that a second cell ... is a potential
handover candidate cell," as recited in claim 16. See App. Br. 3-13; Final
Act. 3--4. Instead, Appellant argues Magnusson fails to teach "adding the
second cell to a neighbor cell relation list." App. Br. 4--5. In particular,
Appellant argues that although "Magnusson teaches to modify the candidate
list,"2 it teaches "not to modify the neighbor cell list." Reply Br. 2.
I agree with the Examiner that this fails to address the Examiner's
findings. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on cells "added to the candidate list,"
not the neighbor cell list. Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). Appellant only
argues that Magnusson's candidate list is different than Magnusson 's
neighbor cell list, but never explains what the claimed "neighbor cell
relation list" requires that is not in the candidate list. Appellant seems to
imply that Magnusson's neighbor cell list is a "neighbor cell relation list,"
but this fails to address whether Magnusson's candidate list also falls within
the scope of a "neighbor cell relation list." The candidate list contains the
same data as the neighbor cell list and merely adds further data ( e.g.,
distances). Magnusson 6:34--38 ("The candidate list is similar to a
conventional neighbor cell list ... but also includes the geographical
2 One example is a mobile phone considering a handoff to a second cell that
is either a neighbor or a neighbor-of-neighbors. See Magnusson 6:21-31,
2:64--67, 3: 17-20; Ans. 3. In the Figure 7 embodiment, the candidate list
first "adds" neighbors, then if no match is found, the neighbors-of-neighbors
are "added to the candidate list." Magnusson 7:58-8:4; Ans. 3.
2
Appeal2017-002693
Application 13/980,216
distances"), 7:60-62 (creating the candidate list with the same cells as the
neighbor cell list). Appellant fails to explain why adding further data (e.g.,
distances) would make such a list no longer "a neighbor cell relation list" as
claimed. App. Br. 5. "If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue ... the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
The majority attempts to remedy Appellant's lack of briefing by sua
sponte construing "a neighbor cell relation list" as "a list of handover
candidate cells" and asserting Magnusson's candidate list is "only a list of
cells that might be a frequency/code match." But Magnusson's candidate
list still meets this broad construction. As Appellant explains, one purpose
of the candidate list is to provide the identity of "the best cellfor handover."
App. Br. 4 ( emphasis added); Magnusson 6:21-31 ("a frequency/code
combination is 'detected' ... when a handover is performed" and "the
candidate list for that particular cell is checked ... for a matching frequency/
code combination"). Thus, a handover to that cell only occurs if that cell is
on the candidate list, which means the candidate list is a list of cells that are
handover candidates. In fact, the candidate list starts out as a list of the same
cells as the neighbor cell list. Magnusson 7:60-62. It is unclear what
further unstated limitations the majority is requiring for this term-and it
may well be that a more complete construction really should exclude
Magnusson' s candidate list-but absent Appellant's briefs identifying a
single structural or functional difference between a "candidate list" and the
claimed "neighbor cell relation list," the record currently before us fails to
show any error in the Examiner's findings on Magnusson's candidate list.
3