Ex Parte Awoniyi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13222972 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
13/222,972 08/31/2011 Olufunmilola O. Awoniyi 102971 6427
23696 7590 04/03/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLUFUNMILOLA O. AWONIYI,
SAMIR S. SOLIMAN, SOUMYA DAS, and
ANDREI D. RADULESCU
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims
1,2,5—16, 18, 21—31, 33, and 36-42. Final Act 3, 16, 18; Claim App’x.
Claims 3, 4, 17, 19, 20, 32, 34, and 35 have been canceled. Claim App’x.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellants, the disclosed invention relates to systems
and methods for supporting macrocell-to-femtocell hand-ins of active macro
communications for mobile devices. Spec. 1 5. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for femtocell discovery by a mobile device being
served by a macrocell, the method comprising:
receiving data instructing the mobile device to perform an
out-of-band (OOB) search for a femtocell in its vicinity, the data
comprising a proximity detection configuration command from
the macrocell indicating that the macrocell has detected a
femtocell in a proximity of the mobile device;
performing the OOB search for the femtocell in response
to the received data, the femtocell configured to operate in a first
frequency band and a second frequency band different from the
first frequency band, the OOB search comprising a search that is
OOB with respect to the macrocell and the second frequency
band;
establishing an OOB link with the femtocell based on the
OOB search, the OOB link comprising at least a part of the first
frequency band;
receiving femtocell information from a femtocell access
point via the OOB link with the femtocell;
transmitting the femtocell information received via the
OOB link to the macrocell; and
receiving instructions from the macrocell to perform an in-
band search for the femtocell based on the femtocell information
received via the OOB link, the in-band search comprising a
search within the second frequency band.
REFERENCES
Haartsen
Kangas
Chen
Gallagher
US 6,574,266 B1 June 3, 2003
US 2006/0148485 A1 July 6, 2006
US 2009/0310568 A1 Dec. 17, 2009
US 2010/0056132 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
2
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
Eskicioglu
Savoor
Richardson
Gomes
Anderson
US 2010/0124927 A1
US 2010/0144371 A1
US 2010/0315974 A1
US 2012/0014267 A1
US 8,180,368 B2
May 20, 2010
June 10, 2010
Dec. 16, 2010
Jan. 19,2012
May 15,2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,2, 5-8, 11-16, 18,21-24, 27-31,33,36,38, 39, 41, and 42
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Eskicioglu, Savoor, Chen, Anderson, and Gallagher. Final
Act. 3-15.
Claims 9,1 10, 25, 26, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Eskicioglu, Savoor, Chen,
Anderson, and Richardson. Final Act. 16—18.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Eskicioglu, Savoor, Chen, Anderson, and Kangas.
Final Act. 18—19.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5—8, 11, 13—16, 18, 21—24,
27, 29-31, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41, and42
Appellants argue the cited art does not teach or suggest the limitations
in claim 1 of (i) receiving data instructing the mobile device to perform an
out-of-band (OOB) search for a femtocell and (ii) receiving instructions
1 The Final Action states that claim 9 is also subject to the same obviousness
rejection as claim 1. Final Act. 3. We treat that statement, however, as a
typographical error because the Final Action analyzes claim 9 with respect
to this rejection that relies on Richardson, which is not part of the
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Id. at 16.
3
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
from the macrocell to perform an in-band search for the femtocell. App. Br.
6—9; Reply Br. 2—6.
Appellants argue the Examiner concedes Eskicioglu does not teach or
suggest these limitations and instead relies on Chen and Anderson. App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 2—6. Appellants further argues that Chen and Anderson
individually do not disclose having a macrocell instruct a mobile device to
perform an OOB search for a femtocell. App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 6. We are
not persuaded by these arguments because they attack the references
individually. Ans. 7, citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As the Examiner
finds, Chen discloses a mobile device that receives instructions from a
mobile station to scan for femtocells. Final Act. 7, citing Chen Figs. 5 and
8. In step 506 of the flow chart of Chen Figure 5, an MBS (macro base
station) sends an MOB_NBR-ADV message to an MS (mobile station).
Chen Fig. 5, H 4, 18. The mobile station receives this message and, as a
result, scans for an fBS (femto base station). Chen Fig. 5, steps 508 and
510. As the Examiner also finds, Eskicioglu discloses performing out-of-
band searches for femtocells. Final Act. 3, citing Eskicioglu Figs. 1 and 2.
Further, as the Examiner finds. Chen, Anderson, and Gallagher disclose the
use of in-band and out-of-band signaling and communications to and from a
mobile station, a femto station, and a base transceiver station (BTS). Final
Act 6—8, Ans. 6—7, citing Chen Figs. 5 and 8, Anderson 19:5—15; Gallagher
113, 9, 28, and 29.
The combination of these disclosures teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. Ans. 6—8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
4
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
of claims 2, 5-7, 11, 13-16, 18,21-24, 27,29-31,33,36,38, 39, 41, and
42, not separately argued. App. Br. 6—9.
Claims 9, 10, 25, 26, 37, and 40
Appellants argue that claims 9, 10, 25, 26, 37, and 40 for the same
reasons as claims 1,18, and 33. App. Br. 9. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 10, 25, 26, 37, and 40.
Claims 12 and 28
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that Anderson and
Gallagher’s disclosures of a dual-femto mode with short and long range
frequencies teach or suggest the limitation of claim 12 of “wherein the
second frequency band is different than a frequency band in use by the
macrocell.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6—7. Appellants argue that the involved
limitation requires at least three frequency bands and the Examiner has not
shown how the cited art has those three bands. App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 6—
7. The Examiner does not explain how the cited prior art (in particular,
Anderson and Gallagher) teach or suggest the distinct bands recited by claim
12, which incorporates the limitations of its base claim 1 and intervening
claim 11. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 8. The Examiner finds that the prior art
shows how various devices/cells can use multiple frequencies/technologies
that teaches the in-band and out-of-band concepts recited in claim 12. Ans.
8. The Examiner, however, does not adequately explain how Anderson and
Gallagher teach or suggest the specific bands recited by claim 12
(incorporating claims 1 and 11).
Accordingly, we are constrained by this record to not sustain the
rejection of claim 12 and of claim 28, which recites a corresponding
5
Appeal 2016-004352
Application 13/222,972
limitation and was similarly rejected and argued. See Final Act. 14; App.
Br. 10.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—11, 13—16, 18, 21—27, 29-
31, 33, and 36-42.
We reverse the rejections of claim 12 and 28.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6