Nokia Technologies Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2021

2019006626 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/364,670 06/11/2014 Haitao Li 49700-127N01US/
NC76953US
1052
12358 7590 03/01/2021
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
SOLINSKY, PETER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2021 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAITAO LI and YANG LIU
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19–29, 31–36, 39, and 40, all of the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 1. Claims 1–18, 30, 37, and 38 are canceled. Claims App. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “providing service continuity” during “a
handover procedure between local area networks.” Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 19 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations
at issue emphasized:
19. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a source base station serving a source
wireless local area network, a measurement report from a user
equipment in dual connectivity with a macro base station, the
measurement report including an indication of an ongoing
service provided by the source base station including the source
wireless local area network to the user equipment;
receiving, at the source base station and during a handover
procedure, service information from a support node in a core
network, wherein the service information includes one or more
services supported by one or more neighbor base stations serving
one or more neighboring wireless local area networks;
determining a target base station from the one or more
neighbor base stations, the determining of the target base station
based on a match between the ongoing service provided by the
source base station to the user equipment and the received service
information including the one or more services; and
handing, based on the determining, over the user
equipment from the source base station to the target base station
to enable continuity in the ongoing service from the source
wireless local area network to the target wireless local area
network, wherein the ongoing service is a local service provided
by the source base station including the source wireless local area
network, and the one or more services are one or more local
services provided by the one or more neighboring base stations
including the one or more neighboring wireless local area
networks.
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Cartmell US 2014/0341109 A1 Nov. 20, 2014
Kaur US 2013/0215772 A1 Aug. 22, 2013
Matsuo US 2011/0300868 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Olvera-Hernandez
(“Olvera”)
US 2013/0089076 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
Zhang US 2012/0236776 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
Zheng US 2012/0100851 A1 Apr. 26, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims References Final Act.
19, 20, 24, 25, 32, 40 Olvera, Kaur 2, 72
21, 26 Olvera, Kaur, Matsuo 7
22, 23, 27 Olvera, Kaur, Zheng 8
28, 29, 33, 36, 39 Olvera, Kaur, Zheng, Zhang 10
31 Olvera, Kaur, Cartmell 12
34, 35 Olvera, Kaur, Zhang 13
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 19 recites, “the measurement report including an
indication of an ongoing service provided by the source base station.”
Independent claim 24 recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner relies on Olvera to teach or suggest this limitation.
Final Act. 3.
According to Appellant, “Olvera relates to selecting a target home
enhanced node B (HeNB) for a handover by selecting between LIPA (local

2 Claim 40 is not included in the introductory paragraph’s list of claims
(Final Act. 2), but it is included in the body of the rejection (id. at 7).
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

4
IP access) and SIPTO (selective IP traffic offload).” Appeal Br. 12
(emphasis omitted). Appellant argues, however, that “[a]lthough Olvera’s
[user equipment (UE)] does send a measurement report including IDs of
local gateways (LGWs), Olvera does not disclose that the measurement
report includes an indication that a session at the UE is LIPA or [SIPTO].”
Id. (emphasis omitted).
According to the Examiner:
There is no disagreement between Applicant and
Examiner that Olvera teaches a UE sending a measurement
report to a base station, [0180]. The sole contention is whether
the information provided in the measurement report includes an
indication of an ongoing service.
Olvera provides that a UE provides identification
information of a local gateway (LGW) or a packet data network
(PDN) in the measurement reports, [0180]. This ID is utilized
by the HeNB to decide on whether a potential handover to
another node would provide LIPA/SIPTO service continuity,
[0180]. . . . The measurement report includes an indication
which allows a HeNB to determine if LIPA/SIPTO service
continuity would exist. This is functionally equivalent to the
measurement report including an indication of an ongoing
service provided by the source base station including the source
wireless local area network to the user equipment.
Ans. 4–5 (emphasis added).
As noted by Appellant and the Examiner, Olvera states that its
measurement reports may include the identities (IDs) of local gateways
(LGW) or packet data networks (PDN). Olvera ¶ 180 (“The UE may report
the LGW, or PDN, IDS in the measurement reports provided by the UE”).
Olvera then discloses: “If the UE reports any such ID, the source HeNB may
use this ID to decide on potential [handover] that may provide LIPA/SIPTO
service continuity.” Id. ¶ 180. That paragraph of Olvera does not expressly
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

5
disclose how the ID is used “to decide on potential [handover] that may
provide LIPA/SIPTO service continuity.” However, the Examiner’s
rejection is for obviousness, not anticipation. We agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to include such LIPA or SIPTO capabilities
in the measurement report itself. Indeed, other parts of Olvera disclose the
UE providing such measurements of capabilities. E.g., Olvera ¶ 133 (“LIPA
capability may be . . . reported to the source H(e)NB as part of the UE
measurement for example.”), claim 8 (“receiving a measurement from the
WTRU [i.e., a wireless transmit/receive unit] for the target HeNB, the
measurement indicating whether radio conditions between the WTRU and
the target HeNB support the session”). Thus, Olvera teaches or suggests that
its measurement report includes an indication of LIPA or SIPTO capability.
Claim 19 further recites, “receiving . . . service information from a
support node.” Claim 24 recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner finds, “[i]n addition to teaching that a UE sends service
information to a base station, Olvera teaches that any subset of information
related to the service rules may be provided to the source or target HeNB via
ANDSF.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added; citing Olvera ¶ 181). The Examiner
cites the 3GPP specifications in determining that “[a] support node is being
broadly interpreted as any device in a core 3GPP network” and “the ANDSF
is the Access Network Discovery and Selection Function” that “is a device
within a core 3GPP network.” Id. at 5–6.
Appellant argues in Olvera, “the UE, not the ANDSF, provides the
HeNB information during a handover.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Olvera ¶ 181).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Olvera expressly
discloses that “[a]ny subset of information related to the identified
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

6
conditions or service rules may be provided to the source or target HeNB via
ANDSF.” Olvera ¶ 181 (emphasis added). Although Olvera also discusses
alternative or additional features by which the UE provides such
information, “[a] reference must be considered for everything that it
teaches,” including the disclosed embodiments that provide such information
via the ANDSF. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Appellant also fails to adequately address the Examiner’s
determination that the ANDSF is a “support node.”
Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner fails to provide “any
evidentiary support that a person having ordinary skill in the art is capable of
bridging” the “significant gap” between claim 19 and the combination of
Olvera and Kaur. Appeal Br. 16–17. However, for the reasons discussed
above, we are not persuaded that there is such a gap. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 19 and 24, and their dependent claims 20, 25, 32, and 40, which
Appellant does not argue separately.
Claim 23
Appellant argues that “as required by claim 23, Zheng does not
disclose or suggest that the measurement report includes information about
an ongoing service provided to the UE or whether a target base station
would be able to continue providing the same service to the UE.” Appeal
Br. 15 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner “agrees with this assessment,” but
points out that the Examiner relies on the combination of Olvera and Kaur
from the rejection of the independent claims to teach or suggest that
limitation. Ans. 6–7. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
against Zheng individually for the reasons discussed above.
Appeal 2019-006626
Application 14/364,670

7
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
Claims 21, 22, 26–29, 31, 33–36, and 39
Appellant does not present separate arguments for any of the
remaining dependent claims or rejections. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 21, 22, 26–29, 31, 33–36, and 39.
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19, 20, 24,
25, 32, 40
103(a) Olvera, Kaur 19, 20, 24,
25, 32, 40

21, 26 103(a) Olvera, Kaur, Matsuo 21, 26
22, 23, 27 103(a) Olvera, Kaur, Zheng 22, 23, 27
28, 29, 33,
36, 39
103(a) Olvera, Kaur, Zheng,
Zhang
28, 29, 33,
36, 39

31 103(a) Olvera, Kaur, Cartmell 31
34, 35 103(a) Olvera, Kaur, Zhang 34, 35
Overall
Outcome
19–29, 31–
36, 39, 40

TIME TO RESPOND
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED