Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 12, 2018

13279035 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/279,035
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
10/21/2011
07/16/2018
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Young-Bin Chang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
SP11341-US
(SAMS06-11341)
CONFIRMATION NO.
7766
EXAMINER
MORLAN, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2018 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-BIN CHANG and RAKESH TAORI
Appeal2018-001015 1
Application 13/279,035
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-28, which are all of the pending claims. See App.
Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is the assignee of this application, Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd." App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-001015
Application 13/279,035
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "technology for recognizing network
loss and handling network loss in a wireless access system." Spec. ,r 23.
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for
reference ( with certain limitations emphasized per page 14 of the Appeal
Brief):
1. A method to operate a base station (BS) in a wireless
access system, the method comprising:
receiving a first message to request a network entry from
a terminal while the BS operates in a backhaul network loss
between the BS and a core network;
determining whether the BS operates in a state of a partial
backhaul network loss or a full backhaul network loss;
upon determining that the BS operates in the state of the
partial backhaul network loss, transmitting a second message
including information regarding an available quality of service
(QoS) service to the terminal via a wireless channel, in response
to the first message;
receiving a third message to continue the network entry
from the terminal, upon determination to continue the network
entry by the terminal,
wherein the determination is based on information
regarding a service desired by the terminal and the information
regarding the available QoS service; and
upon determining that the BS operates in the state of the
full backhaul network loss, transmitting a message informing
that a new entry is prohibited.
References and Re} ections
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 13, 16, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as beingunpatentable over Yeh (US 6,690,929 Bl; Feb. 10, 2004)
and Gupta (US 2009/0213825 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). Final Act 2---6.
2
Appeal 2018-001015
Application 13/279,035
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17-19, and 21-282 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Yeh,
Gupta, and other prior art references. Final Act. 6-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are not persuaded of Examiner error; we adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2-15; Ans. 2-15) as our
own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Any arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to raise in the Briefs are deemed
waived. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long
been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner's rejections").
Appellants argue "the references provided by [the] Examiner [] do not
describe each and every element of the claims of the instant application,
expressly or inherently." App. Br. 13. Particularly, Appellants argue "the
feature of receiving the network entry request message during the backhaul
network loss is not disclosed or suggested by a combination of Yeh and
Gupta" and "the cited portions of Yeh teaches increasing prices in response
to a network outage and not transmitting an available quality of service
(QoS) service in response to the first message requesting network entry."
Reply Br. 5, 7.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Appellants' arguments fail
to address the Examiner's findings, which are based on the combined
2 We note claims 9 and 21 are included in two separate grounds of rejection
each. See Final Act. 5-6.
3
Appeal 2018-001015
Application 13/279,035
teachings of Yeh and Gupta. See Final Act. 14; Ans. 9--10; In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Here, the
Examiner finds claim 1 to be obvious in view of the teachings of "var[ying]
service availability in the system of Yeh based on backhaul issues as taught
by Gupta." Final Act. 3. We agree, as the Examiner correctly finds "Yeh as
discussed teaches network entry during a network failure" and "the system
can compensate for network outages that can be dealt with or routed
around." Ans. 7, 9; see also Final Act. 13; Yeh 4:29--40 ("the rate for a new
call can be set"), 4:67-5: 1 ("a QoS negotiation in the course of initial
establishment of a connection"), 5:50-57. Furthermore, Appellants do not
provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that the Examiner
errs in finding "Gupta teaches . . . that the backhaul may be down
completely, or that it may just not be of good enough quality for certain
services." Ans. 9; see Gupta ,r 30.
Nor have Appellants presented arguments or technical reasoning to
show the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill would combine Yeh
with Gupta as claimed. The Examiner finds the combination teaches or
suggests that the base station and terminal will message each other for
network entry, in which "offered services would be reduced based on
capabilities to no service at all being available (all services set to infinity) as
is taught by Yeh." Final Act. 14. We find the Examiner's determination to
be reasonable, and agree that "[ w ]hen properly combined with Yeh, one
would have realized that [Gupta's teaching ofJ backhaul loss would be an
4
Appeal 2018-001015
Application 13/279,035
issue similar to the switch failure discussed in Yeh. It would have the effect
of increasing congestion, leading to higher prices and reduced capabilities."
Final Act. 14; see also Final Act. 5; Ans. 12-13.
Moreover, we note Appellants' arguments regarding Gupta focus on
paragraph 24 of the reference. See, e.g., App. Br. 15, 19; Reply Br. 3, 5. In
the Answer however, the Examiner relies on additional paragraphs of Gupta
for teaching "that if the network loss is total, that it may force all the
wireless devices to hand over and prevent new devices from connecting,"
and that "situations of partial backhaul loss (i.e. where the backhaul isn't
performing to expectations), and in those situations the services that can
not be properly performed should be handed over to another base station."
Ans. 6-7; see Gupta ,r,r 30, 32, 33. Appellants do not challenge these
findings. See Reply Br. 1-7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection of claim
1 is in error.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants advance no further substantive argument on remaining claims
3-13 and 15-28. See App. Br. 20-24. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
5
Appeal 2018-001015
Application 13/279,035
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 15-28 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6