Ex Parte Fodor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

14546848 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/546,848 11/18/2014 Gabor Fodor
24112 7590 10/23/2018
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-9043/P26601-US2 8606
EXAMINER
HO,HUYC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2018 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 GABOR FODOR, MUHAMMAD KAZMI, and IANA SIOMINA 1
Appeal2018-002807
Application 14/546,848
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a technique for use in multiple radio
access technology (multi-RAT) to provide system resource status
information. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and are
reproduced below.
1. A method implemented in a node of a multiple radio
access technology (multi-RAT) system, comprising:
1 According to Appellants, Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002807
Application 14/546,848
acquiring resource status information associated with
each RAT of the multi-RAT system; and
maintaining an N-bit global flag representing an overall
resource availability of the multi-RAT system,
based on the acquired resource status information,
for use in admission control;
wherein the N-bit global flag is encoded such that none
of its N bits describes any of the multiple RA Ts
individually.
EXAMINER'S REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as being anticipated by Kazmi (WO 2007/126352 Al, Nov. 8,
2007). Final Act. 3-8.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b).
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 7 is in error as Kazmi does not teach a global flag encoded such that
none of its bits describes any of the multiple RA Ts individually as claimed.
App. Br. 4--7. Appellants argue that Kazmi teaches that each node generates
a congestion status flag and that as such Kazmi does not teach the disputed
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
September 21, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January 18, 2018,
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed April 12, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 20, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-002807
Application 14/546,848
limitation. App. Br. 4 ( citing Kazmi 7). Further, Appellants argue Kazmi' s
discussion embodiment which includes inter-RAT handovers also includes a
multi-RAT flag, but that this flag also represents individual RATs and
identifies the congestion in that RAT. App. Br. 5 (citing Kazmi 10).
The Examiner finds that the multi-RAT flag is generated for
indicating overall resource status and can be encoded in multiple ways. Ans.
8 ( citing Kazmi 9). Further, the Examiner states:
Kazmi further emphasizes that the flag is an indication of
overall status of resource situation as disclosed in Page 10
Lines 19-32, Page 11 Lines 19-30, Page 12 Lines 1-6 and Page
14 Lines 7-25, but the flag is not "implying or representing
multiple individual RATs" as argued in the Appellant's argued
features above.
Ans. 9.
We disagree with the Examiner. As argued by Appellants, Kazmi
teaches that each node generates a congestion flag. See Kazmi 7 :24--26,
11 :21-23. Further, Kazmi' s discussion of the multi-RAT flag shows that it
contains several bits each indicating the status of a respective RAT
technology (see Kazmi 10-11, specifically table on page 11). Thus, we do
not find the Examiner has identified sufficient evidence to show Kazmi
teaches a global flag encoded such that none of its bits describes any of the
multiple RATs individually as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 and
dependent claims 2 through 6 and 8 through 10.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
3
Appeal2018-002807
Application 14/546,848
REVERSED
4