Ex Parte Anttalainen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

10595140 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SANTERI ANTTALAINEN, LASZLO BALLA, and
ARPAD GYORGY
____________________

Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–3, 5, and 6. Claim 4 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellants’ Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention is a communication control entity and a
method and system for controlling a communication control entity in a
mobile communication network (claims 1, 5, and 6; Fig. 2; Title).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with emphasis added to disputed
portions of the claim, reads as follows:
1. A method of controlling a communication control
entity in a communication control part of a mobile
communication network that comprises a communication
control part and an access part, said communication control
entity acting as a primary communication entity for a call
communication and belonging to a pool of communication
control entities among which no handover procedure is
conducted as long as a mobile communication device moves
among service realms associated with a predetermined number
of access control entities that are connected to said pool, said
method comprising the steps:
receiving a handover request for removing a first
secondary communication control entity from a control process
for controlling said call communication and adding a second
secondary communication control entity,
determining whether said second secondary
communication control entity belongs to said pool, and if said
second secondary communication control entity belongs to said
Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140

3
pool, rejecting said second secondary communication control
entity to said control procedure and instead communicating
directly by said communication control entity with the mobile
communication device of which said given call communication
is being controlled via an access control entity connected to
said primary communication control entity without utilizing any
secondary communication control entity as a relay.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, and 6 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ernam (US 6,097,951; issued Aug. 1, 2000)
and Ho (US 6,091,953; issued Jul. 18, 2000). Ans. 4–8.1
Appellants’ Contentions2
Appellants contend (Br. 5–11) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and (b) (and not under
§ 103(a)), because, inter alia, Ernam fails to disclose (i) the preamble of
claim 1 (including the handover procedure and access control entities), (ii)
rejecting the second secondary communication control entity, and (iii) the

1 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, and 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ernam
and Ho (Final Rej. 2–6; Ans. 4–8). However, Appellants have argued
patentability of claims 1–3, 5, and 6 as if an anticipation rejection were made
over Ernam (Br. 5–6 citing anticipation case law and phrasing the issue in
the case as one of anticipation by Ernam). The Examiner correctly points
out that Appellants have argued anticipation instead of obviousness in the
Appeal Brief, and that the issue on appeal is one of obviousness and not
anticipation (Ans. 8).
2 Appellants primarily present arguments only as to claim 1 (Br. 7–11), and
assert that independent claims 5 and 6 contain similar features as claim 1
(Br. 7 and 10). We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1–
3, 5, and 6 rejected for obviousness over Ernam and Ho, and we group
dependent claims 2 and 3, as well as independent claims 5 and 6 with
representative claim 1.
Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140

4
handover request for removing a first secondary communication control
entity, all as recited in representative claim 1.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
8–16 of the Answer, and specifically the Examiner’s citation to Figure 5 of
Ernam (see Ans. 12–13 citing Ernam, Fig. 5 and access control entities 66,
68, and 69) as disclosing the access control entities recited in claim 1.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5–11), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–3, 5, and 6 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ernam and Ho because Ernam fails to
disclose the disputed limitations of representative independent claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Rej. 3–6; Ans. 4–
8) in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5–11) that the
Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4–8), and (2) the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8–16) in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4–16) that the combination of
Ernam and Ho teaches or suggests the salient features recited in
Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140

5
representative claim 1 (including the preamble limitations) of a method for
controlling a communication entity in a mobile communication network
using (1) an access control entity from a predetermined number of access
control entities, and (2) a communication control entity belonging to a pool
of communication control entities including (a) a primary communication
control entity, and (b) first and second secondary communication control
entities. And more particularly, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 12–13)
that Ernam’s Figure 5 discloses base station subsystems (BSSs) 66, 68, and
69 that are equivalent to the access control entities of claim 1 (claim 1 sets
forth that the access control entity performs the function of controlling call
communications). Because BSSs 66, 68, and 69 route calls in the mobile
communication network from mobile phone 52 to the home or gateway
mobile switching center (GMSC) 60 and dispatcher/router mobile switching
center (MSC) 32 (Ans. 12–13 citing Ernam’s Fig. 5, elements 66, 68, and
69; see also description of Fig. 5 at col. 6, l. 47–col. 7, l. 2), this function is
analogous to the control of calls performed by the access control entities
recited in representative claim 1.
Appellants’ argument (Br. 11) that Ernam fails to disclose a handover
request as claimed is not persuasive, since (i) Ho teaches or suggests such a
handover request and procedure at column 20, lines 20–35; and (ii) Ernam
also teaches or suggests handovers at column 10, lines 1 and 41–43.
Appellants’ argument (Br. 10) that Ernam fails to disclose rejecting
the second secondary communication control entity as recited in
representative claim 1 is unpersuasive in light of the Examiner’s reliance
upon Ho (col. 20, ll. 19–36) as teaching or suggesting this feature. Because
Appellants argue the merits of anticipation as concerns only Ernam,
Appeal 2012-006244
Application 10/595,140

6
Appellants have not rebutted or otherwise shown the Examiner’s findings
(see Ans. 6–7, 11, and 13–14) and conclusions (Ans. 6–7 and 15–16) with
regard to Ho to be in error, including the Examiner’s reliance on Ho (col. 20,
ll. 37–40) as providing the motivation for modifying Ernam with Ho in order
to lower processing loads at the MSCs by eliminating inter-MSC location
update and handover results (Ans. 7).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1 as well as claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 grouped therewith as
being obvious over the combination of Ernam and Ho.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–3, 5, and 6 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, and 6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lv