BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2020

15567472 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2020)

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.
15/567,472 10/18/2017 Maria CUEVAS RAMIREZ RYM-36-2639 7894
23117 7590 08/21/2020
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
LOUIS-FILS, NICOLE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2020 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA CUEVAS RAMIREZ
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BRITISH
TELECOMMUNICATIONS public limited company, a corporation of the
United Kingdom. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to the maintenance of tracking and location
area mappings needed by a network control system to support a dual
attachment process in mobile cellular telephony. Spec. 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A mobile telecommunications system comprising:
a plurality of base stations forming part of a first network
operating according to a first protocol, a plurality of base stations
forming part of a second network operating according to a second
protocol, and a mobile management entity (MME), in which the
MME has a store of mappings between geographical areas
managed by a set of respective first network control elements in
the first network and geographical areas managed by a set of
respective second network control elements in the second
network, the mapping being suitable for supporting a dual attach
system to allow a mobile terminal, having made an association
with one of the set of first network control elements, to make an
association with one of the set of second network control
elements selected according to the mapping,
wherein at least one of the base stations of the first network
is arranged to request and receive neighbour data from a mobile
terminal currently in communication with the base station, the
neighbour data relating to base stations of the second network
that can be detected by the mobile terminal, and to forward the
neighbour data to the MME, and the MME is arranged to update
the mapping between the base stations in accordance with the
location updates it receives from the terminal.
REJECTION
Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Lee et al. (US 2013/0051362 Al, published Feb. 28,
2013) (“Lee”) and Nylander et al. (US 2012/0195255 Al, published Aug. 2,
2012) (“Nylander”). Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1–15 in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only
those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs
are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends the cited
portions of Lee and Nylander do not teach or suggest the limitation:
wherein at least one of the base stations of the first network is
arranged to request and receive neighbour data from a mobile
terminal currently in communication with the base station, the
neighbour data relating to base stations of the second network
that can be detected by the mobile terminal, and to forward the
neighbour data to the MME, and the MME is arranged to update
the mapping between the base stations in accordance with the
location updates it receives from the terminal,
as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that “Lee does not
describe a mechanism to collate an accurate TA/LA mapping and store it in
a mobile management entity (MME). Instead, Lee assumes that such
mapping table exists and uses it to select the most appropriate cell to
handover to.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the plain language of claim 1 does
not recite or otherwise require “a mechanism to collate an accurate TA/LA
mapping and store it in a mobile management entity (MME).” See Ans. 5.
Claim 1 merely recites that “the MME is arranged to update the mapping
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

4
between the base stations in accordance with the location updates it receives
from the terminal.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner found
that Lee teaches an MME storing a mapping and teaches how to obtain the
mapping information by using a measurement report for the user equipment,
which the Examiner explained is analogous to a mechanism to gather
information for a TA/LA mapping list. Ans. 5. The Examiner also found that
Nylander teaches that “the MME is arranged to update the mapping between
the base stations in accordance with the location updates it receives from the
terminal.” Ans. 4 (citing Nylander Fig. 10); Final Act. 5–6 (citing Nylander
¶ 123).
Appellant argues that Nylander does not cure Lee’s deficiencies
because “Nylander’s first base station node does not obtain data (data
regarding tracking area, cell type) of the second base station node from a
mobile terminal.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. The Examiner found that
“Nylander obtains the tracking area of the second base station by using an
Automatic Neighbor Relation function,” which “instructs a wireless terminal
to perform measurements on neighbor cells and the wireless terminal sends a
measurement reporting regarding the cell served by the second base station
node.” Ans. 4 (citing Nylander ¶ 99).
Appellant replies that paragraph 99 of Nylander describes the
measurement of properties of neighbour cells from the mobile terminal, not
the initial identification of such cells. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant,
“[t]he network will already know the identities of the neighbours as they are
part of the same network.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

5
Appellant has not persuaded us that claim 1 requires the initial
identification of neighbour cells. The plain language of claim 1 requires that
“at least one of the base stations of the first network is arranged to request
and receive neighbour data from a mobile terminal currently in
communication with the base station, the neighbour data relating to base
stations of the second network that can be detected by the mobile terminal,”
and that “the MME is arranged to update the mapping between the base
stations in accordance with the location updates it receives from the
terminal.” Appeal Br. 17. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
findings that Lee teaches an MME that has a store mapping and Nylander
teaches requesting/receiving the neighboring information. See Ans. 4–5. We
also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Lee with
the teaching of Nylander to provide a system for obtaining tracking area
update information. See id.
Finally, Appellant argues that, although claim 1 requires two
networks, with a base station of the first network operating according to a
first protocol and a base station of the second network operating according
to a second protocol, Nylander teaches that all base stations are part of the
same network, and are thus on a common neighbour list which can be
maintained by the MME. Appeal Br. 11.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Appellant attacks
Nylander individually, even though the Examiner relied on the combination
of Lee and Nylander in rejecting claim 1. In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

6
have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). The test for
obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in
any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, for example, the Examiner found that Lee teaches a mobile
telecommunications system comprising a plurality of base stations forming
part of a first network operating according to a first protocol and a plurality
of base stations forming part of a second network operating according to a
second protocol. Final Act. 4 (citing Lee, Figs. 1, 3, ¶¶ 4, 5). Thus, the
Examiner relied on Lee, not Nylander, as teaching two networks, with a base
station of the first network operating according to a first protocol and a base
station of the second network operating according to a second protocol.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Lee and Nylander teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claims 5, 8, and 10, not argued separately with particularity. See
Appeal Br. 9, 14. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7–9, and 12–15, not argued separately.
Turning to dependent claim 3, Appellant argues that the cited
teachings of Lee and Nylander fail to teach or suggest “the mapping is used
by the MME to select a server in the second network with which an attach
procedure is to be initiated when an attachment to the first network is
initiated by a user terminal,” as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in
Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

7
claims 6 and 11. Appeal Br. 14–15. In particular, Appellant argues that
paragraphs 16 and 144 of Nylander, relied on by the Examiner, do not teach
or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 15. Appellant argues that Nylander
“fails to mention selection based on the mapping for supporting a dual attach
system, let alone selection of a server in the second network with which an
attach procedure is to be initiated when an attachment to the first network is
initiated by a user terminal.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because, again, Appellant
argues Nylander separately, even though the Examiner relied on the
combined teachings of Lee and Nylander. See Final Act. 11. The Examiner
found that Lee teaches an MME storing a mapping table of relations
between cells of two different protocols. See Ans. 5 (citing Lee Fig. 3, table
3010 with MME 230). Appellant did not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
finding in the Appeal Brief and did not address it in the Reply Brief.
The test for obviousness is whether the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Because Appellant did not address whether the combined teachings of Lee
and Nylander would have taught, or at least suggested, the disputed
limitation, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent
claim 3, as well as grouped dependent claims 6 and 11.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–15.

Appeal 2019-003500
Application 15/567,472

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Lee, Nylander 1–15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED