Ex Parte Asthana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2013

11354709 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013)

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.
11/354,709 02/15/2006 Abhaya Asthana Asthana 10-17-10-4
(LCNT/
1276
46363 7590 06/14/2013
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ABHAYA ASTHANA, ERIC BAUER,
PETER BOSCH, and XUEMEI ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to wireless communication networks.
Spec. 1:5-6. More specifically, the invention relates to a method and
apparatus for reconfiguring a first base station to attempt to serve at least a
portion of the plurality of wireless terminals served by a second base station
in response to detection of a failure condition at the second base station.
Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, 19, 20, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention (formatting modified and emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising the steps of:
detecting a failure condition on a first base station
element, wherein the first base station element was serving a
plurality of wireless terminals prior to the occurrence of the
failure condition; and
upon detecting the failure condition, triggering a second
base station element to self-reconfigure according to a
reconfiguration solution adapted to reconfigure the second base
station element to serve at least a portion of the plurality of
wireless terminals served by the first base station element prior
to the occurrence of the failure condition,
wherein the reconfiguration solution depends on a type of
the failure condition,
wherein, to provide continuity of the service to the
portion of the plurality of wireless terminals, the second base
station element, upon completion of the self-reconfiguring,
initiates respective signaling to establish communication with
each wireless terminal in the portion of the plurality of wireless
terminals.
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4, 7-14, 16-18, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by William (GB 2280570 A, pub. Feb.
1, 1995). Ans. 3-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Stanwood (US 2006/0264214 A1, pub. Nov. 23,
2006). Ans. 8-10.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over William and Stanwood. Ans. 11-13.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over William and Barak (US 2004/0077349 A1, pub.
Apr. 22, 2004). Ans. 13-14.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
(1) Does William disclose a second base station element that “initiates
respective signaling to establish communication with each wireless terminal
in the portion of the plurality of wireless terminals” previously served by the
first base station element, as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 11 and 21?
(2) Does Stanwood disclose “reconfiguring . . . the first base station
element” upon detection of a failure condition on a second base station
element, as recited in claim 19 and similarly recited in claim 20?
(3) Does Stanwood disclose “a reconfiguration solution determined
based on at least a type of the failure condition,” as recited in claim 19?
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

4
(4) Does Stanwood disclose a reconfiguration solution “selected from
a plurality of pre-determined reconfiguration solutions associated with the
first base station element,” as recited in claim 20?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-18 and 21
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that William discloses a
second base station element that “initiates respective signaling to establish
communication with each wireless terminal in the portion of the plurality of
wireless terminals” previously served by the first base station element. Ans.
4, 19. The portion of William cited by the Examiner provides that
“transmitters in either adjacent sectors or cells can extend their coverage
range beyond their normal boundaries in order to provide service to mobile
communications devices lying outside their defined coverage cells.”
William, 7:30-33. According to the Examiner, “this clearly shows that
signaling is initiated between the mobile communication devices and the
base station 26 of the adjacent cell or sector in order to allow the mobile
communication devices in the cell or sector of the base station to continue
their wireless communication sessions.” Ans. 19. Because the purpose of
extending the range of base stations in adjacent cells is to maintain service
with the mobile devices in the cell of the failed base station, the Examiner
finds that “signaling between [sic] the second base station covering the
cell/sector of the failed base station will and does occur to establish
communication.” Id.
We are unable to agree with the Examiner that William discloses the
recited limitation, either explicitly or inherently. As Appellants argue,
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

5
William is “completely silent” with respect to a second base station initiating
signaling to establish communication with wireless terminals previously
served by the first base station. App. Br. 14. While William describes a
second base station extending its communications coverage range, it does
not disclose that the second base station initiates signaling to establish
communication with the wireless terminals. Moreover, as Appellants point
out, communication between the second base station and the wireless
terminals could be established in other ways, e.g., the wireless terminals
could initiate signaling to establish communication. App. Br. 14. Therefore,
because the second base station in William does not necessarily initiate
signaling to establish communication, William does not inherently disclose
the recited limitation.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
independent claims 11 and 21, each of which recites a similar limitation, and
dependent claims 4, 7-10, 12-14, and 16-18. Furthermore, the Examiner has
not asserted that either Stanwood or Barak teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation, and therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 over William and Stanwood or the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5 and 15 over William
and Barak.1

1 Because this issue is dispositive with respect to claims 1-18 and 21, we
need not address Appellants’ additional arguments directed to those claims.
See App. Br. 9-19; Reply Br. 2-6.
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

6
Claims 19 and 20
Appellants contend that Stanwood does not disclose
“reconfiguring . . . the first base station element” upon detection of a failure
condition on a second base station element, as recited in independent claim
19 and similarly recited in independent claim 20. App. Br. 19. Specifically,
Appellants argue that “the entity that is being reconfigured [in Stanwood] is
a subscriber station and not an operating base station element.” Id. The
Examiner responds that the subscriber station disclosed in Stanwood reads
on the recited “first base station element” “because the subscriber station can
also function as a base station, i.e., the subscriber station switches its mode
to reconfigure its functionality from a subscriber to base station if it
determines there is a failure of a base station.” Ans. 22 (citing Stanwood,
Figs. 2A and 2B, ¶¶ 23, 41, and 44).
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding
that Stanwood discloses the disputed limitation. Stanwood describes a
“switchable communication device” that can function as either a base station
or a subscriber station. Stanwood, ¶¶ 20, 24. The Examiner has reasonably
interpreted the recited “first base station element” to encompass Stanwood’s
device that switches its functionality to operate as a base station upon
detection of a failure condition on another base station. Ans. 8-9, 22.
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the claims do not require the first base
station element to be “operating” as a base station before it is reconfigured.
Appellants also contend that Stanwood fails to disclose reconfiguring
a first base station element “according to a reconfiguration solution
determined based on at least a type of the failure condition” of the second
base station element, as recited in claim 19. App. Br. 19-20. We agree with
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

7
the Examiner that Stanwood discloses this limitation. As the Examiner
finds, Stanwood describes a reconfiguration solution (subscriber station 220
in Fig. 2B switches to base station mode) based on a type of the failure
condition of the second base station (base station 200 stops functioning).
Ans. 9, 22 (citing Stanwood, Figs. 2A and 2B, ¶¶ 23 and 41). As reasonably
interpreted by the Examiner, a base station ceasing to function is a “type” of
failure condition.
Appellants further contend that Stanwood fails to disclose a
reconfiguration solution “selected from a plurality of pre-determined
reconfiguration solutions associated with the first base station element,” as
recited in claim 20. App. Br. 21. Specifically, Appellants argue that “the
only solution that Stanwood discloses is switching the functionality of a
station from being a subscriber station to being a base station.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As the Examiner
correctly finds, Stanwood describes a plurality of pre-determined
reconfiguration solutions. Ans. 10, 23. For example, in one such solution,
the next base station (i.e., the next subscriber station to switch to base station
mode) is selected by subscriber stations negotiating with one another using
factors such as bandwidth or signal quality. Stanwood, ¶ 41. Another
solution is a “next-in-line” plan based on various factors such as signal
strength. Id. When one of these reconfiguration solutions results in the first
base station being selected as the next base station, that solution is
“associated with the first base station element.” Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Stanwood discloses a reconfiguration solution “selected from
a plurality of pre-determined reconfiguration solutions associated with the
first base station element,” as recited in claim 20.
Appeal 2010-011142
Application 11/354,709

8
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of
claims 19 and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-14, 16-18, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by William is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over William and Stanwood is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over William and Barak is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Stanwood 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-IN-PART

ke