Ex Parte Fellows et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12808175 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/808,175 08/17/2010 Simon Fellows
27964 7590 08/31/2016
PARKER JUSTISS, P,C
P.O. BOX 832570
RICHARDSON, TX 75083
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
316538US 1207
EXAMINER
WANG,FANGHWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMON FELLOWS, SIMON HUCKETT, and
GODFREY DA COSTA
Appeal2015-002947
Application 12/808, 175
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and KAMRAN JIV ANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 25, 27-36, and 38--48, which are
all the claims pending in the present application. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Icera, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-24, 26, and 37 are cancelled. App. Br. 13, 15.
Appeal2015-002947
Application 12/808, 175
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to performing operations handling
communications over a wireless cellular network. Spec. ,-r 2.
Claim 25 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
25. A method comprising:
An inter-radio-access-technology device
compnsmg:
an interface for communicating over a
wireless cellular network;
a first storage apparatus configured to store
code for performing operations handling
communications via said interface according to a
plurality of different radio access technologies;
a second storage apparatus configured to
store a plurality of different sets of instruction
definitions which [L 1] map code onto actions to be
carried out by a processor, each set being
configured for performing operations according to a
respective one of the radio access technologies;
said processor arranged to execute said code,
the processor being operable to execute code in a
manner defined by any selected one of said sets of
said instruction definitions by reference to said
second storage apparatus; and
a selection apparatus operable to [L2]
dynamically switch between said radio access
technologies, by selecting code from the first
storage apparatus for execution by the processor
and selecting the corresponding set of instruction
definitions from the second storage apparatus for
executing the selected code in a manner defined by
the corresponding set of instruction definitions,
2
Appeal2015-002947
Application 12/808, 175
wherein the selection apparatus comprises
scheduling code which when executed by the
processor controls the dynamic selection of the
radio access technology.
The Rejections
Claims 25, 27, 36, 38, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Barr (US 2008/0132291 Al; June 5, 2008), Hildebrand (US
8,023,896 B2; Sept. 20, 2011), Sheynman (US 2006/0003800 Al; Jan. 5,
2006), and Murao (US 5,335,331; Aug. 2, 1994).
Claims 28-35 and 39--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Barr, Hildebrand, Sheynman, Murao, and Otting (US 2009/0104907 Al;
Apr. 23, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 25. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Appellants
contend Barr does not meet limitation L 1 because "Barr teaches a different
set of instructions for each RAT supported, whereas pending independent
Claim 25 teaches that a same set of instructions is used." App. Br. 7; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellants further contend, "Modifying Barr to use instruction
definitions (that maps code) instead of a code set itself ... would clearly
change the principle of operation of Barr." App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Finally,
Appellants contend the cited portions of Sheynman "teach how initial cell
selection is performed" and not limitation L2, which requires subsequent
switching between multiple RATs. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal2015-002947
Application 12/808, 175
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
First, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding a
purported difference in scope between Barr and claim 25 because
Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 25 recites in relevant part, "a plurality of different sets of instruction
definitions which map code onto actions to be carried out by a processor."
The plain claim language does not require the instructions used to support
multiple RATs must come from the same set, as Appellants contend. See
App. Br. 7.
Second, we are similarly not persuaded by Appellant's argument
regarding Barr's principle of operation. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
"the principle of operation of Barr is to use a plurality of code sets and
instructions already in Memory 114" in order to scan for available RATs and
select an optimum RAT. Ans. 9.
We further determine the Examiner's findings "modifying Barr to use
instruction definitions (that maps code) instead of a code set itself, as taught
by Murao" (Ans. 9) are reasonable because a skilled artisan would "be able
to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since
the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). We note
Appellants do not proffer evidence that using sets of instruction definitions
as claimed would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19).
4
Appeal2015-002947
Application 12/808, 175
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding
limitation L2. The cited portion of Sheynman is not limited to "initial call
setup" as Appellants contend. Rather Sheynman teaches, "Time critical
radio access technology functionality ... is coordinated by a real-time
coordinator 343 in the real-time portion of the timing component."
Sheynman i-f 30. The "real-time coordinator controls switching between
radio access technologies under control from the radio resource component
337." Id. Indeed Sheynman teaches use of these components during both
initial call setup and also during interrupt processing. Id. at i-fi-131-32.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejection
of claim 25. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims
27-36 and 38--48. App. Br. 9-12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C § 103(a) rejections of claims 27-36 and 38--48.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 25, 27-36, and
38--48.
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
5