Ex Parte Harris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12103391 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/103,391 04/15/2008
28004 7590 12/14/2015
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David L. Harris
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.
5048 1842
EXAMINER
FLYNN, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2015 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
Exparte DAVID L. HARRIS, WALTERF. RAUSCH,
and KOSOL JINT ASERANEE
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-12, 14--17, and 20-23. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 3
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Sprint
Communications Company. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 8, 9, 13, 18, and 19 have been canceled. App. Br. 2.
3 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed June 28, 2013
("Br."); Reply Brief filed October 10, 2013 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed August 12, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
February 5, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed April 15,
2008 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Backhaul links are typically provided along a communication path
between a mobile device and a service provider in a communication system,
and act as additional communication links to ensure that sufficient
bandwidth is always available for communication services. Spec. i-fi-1 4--5.
However, these backhaul links are allegedly expensive links and can become
a bottleneck when delivering wireless communication services to many users
served by the same access system. Id. i16. As such, Appellants' invention
seeks to efficiently use a backhaul link 131 along a communication path
between an access system 121 (e.g., base transceiver station "BTS") and a
service system 141 (e.g., base station controller "BSC") in such a
communication system, shown in Figure 1, when multiple users request the
same content at nearly the same time. Id. i19 and Abstract.
Appellants' Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
-\·~·.:.r{:'.: . .;:'~.':'. :
~-~
COMM. 111
DEVlCE 1------"->
1fil
COMM.. 112
ACCESS
SYSTEM
ill.
DEVICE >-----~~
.mi
l -~ ~ ;~~~d ~ -~ ~~ ~!
I .. ,3·, SERv1CE
SYSTEM
1il
CONTENT
PROVIDER
182
172
/COMM.
/NETWORK
,/ 1fil
:----
17~_,;.1
v
/ ...-..-- CONTENT
~/ k: PROVIDER
1fil
Appellants' Figure 1 shows a communication system utilizing a
backhaul link 131 between an access system 121 and a service system 141.
2
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention and is reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics:
1. A method of operating a communication system, the
method comprising:
receiving first content into a base transceiver station
(BTS) from a backhaul link between the BTS and a base station
controller (BSC) remote from the BTS;
transmitting the first content from the BTS to a first
device served by the BTS;
receiving a second packet communication from a second
device served by the BTS wherein the second packet
communication includes a second content request;
processing the second packet communication to
determine a second content identifier included in the second
content request wherein the second content identifier is
associated with second content;
processing the second content identifier to determine if
the second content is the same as the first content;
in response to determining that the second content is the
same as the first content, generating and transferring a control
instruction from the BSC to the BTS instructing the BTS to
begin buffering the first content;
buffering the first content at the BTS, and transmitting
the buffered first content to the second device; and
in response to determining that the second content is not
the same as the first content, transferring the second packet
communication to a communication network to obtain the
second content.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App.).
3
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
Estevez et al.
Xie
Luft
Faucheux et al.
Evidence Considered
US 2005/0125836 Al
US 2006/0294555 Al
US 2007 /0058629 Al
US 2007/0160048 Al
Examiner's Rejections
June 9, 2005
Dec. 28, 2006
Mar. 15, 2007
July 12, 2007
(1) Claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, 14--17, and 20-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Faucheux, Estevez, and Xie.
Final Act. 4--11.
(2) Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Faucheux, Estevez, Xie, and Luft. Final Act. 11-
13.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
\~1hether the Examiner's combination of Faucheux, Estevez, and Xie teaches
or suggests the use of disputed limitations: (1) "a base transceiver station
(BTS)" and (2) "a base station controller (BSC)" in the manner recited in
Appellants' independent claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11 and 21.
App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claim 1 and similarly, claims 11 and 21, the
Examiner finds Faucheux discloses a method of operating a communication
system, shown in Figure 1, including the disputed limitations: (1) "a base
transceiver station (BTS)" in the context of an access point, and (2) "a base
station controller (BSC)" in the context of a server remote from the base
4
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
transceiver station (BTS) (i.e., access point) to perform the alleged
functions. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Faucheux i-fi-121, 169, 203, 210-212, 243,
266).
Faucheux's Figure 1 shows a communication system, as reproduced
below with additional markings for illustration.
1
2
l
f
(
D~
f
Faucheux's Figure 1 shows a communication system in which data is
transmitted (multi-cast) from a content server 2 to multiple end-users 4.1-
4.3, via a communication network 3 and multiple access points 5.1-5.3.
According to the Examiner, Appellants' claimed "base station
controller (BSC)" can be broadly interpreted to encompass any "element of
[a] communications network that is in communication with an access point,
edge device, base station, etc." Final Act. 2. Based on that interpretation,
the Examiner finds the content server 2, shown in Faucheux's Figure 1, as
Appellants' claimed "base station controller (BSC)" because Faucheux's
servers are also used to aid the access points, edge devices, base stations, etc.
in transmitting and receiving data in a communications network. Id. at 2-3
(citing Faucheux i143, and Fig. 1).
5
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
The Examiner also finds Estevez and Xie teach additional steps of
Appellants' claims 1, 11, and 21 to support the conclusion of obviousness,
including: (1) "instructing the BTS to begin buffering the first content"; (2)
"buffering the first content at the BTS"; and (3) "in response to determining
that the second content is not the same as the first content, transferring the
second packet communication to a communication network to obtain the
second content" as allegedly disclosed by Estevez and Xie. Id. at 4--8 (citing
Estevez i-fi-13--4, 13-15, 18, 22-23, 33, Fig. 1; and Xie i-fi-142, 70-71, 75, 86-
89, Fig. 5).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Faucheux and Estevez. In particular, Appellants acknowledge Faucheux
teaches that an access point (AP) 5.1-5.3, shown in Figure 1, could be a base
station in the context of a cellular network. App. Br. 7 (citing Faucheux i1
19). However, Appellants argue Faucheux does not teach that the server
[i.e., content server 2, shown in Figure 1] could be Appellants' claimed
"base station controller (BSC)" as recited in claims 1, 11, and 21. App. Br.
7; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, a base station controller (BSC) "is
a specific network element in cellular communication networks" "known to
those of ordinary skill in the art" and, as such, cannot be interpreted to
encompass any generic element or "an element of the communications
network that is in communication with an access point, edge device, base
station, etc." as found by the Examiner. App. Br. 7.
In addition, Appellants argue Estevez only teaches buffering data in
wireless devices and not at access points, similarly disclosed by Faucheux.
Id. at 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Estevez teaches pre-buffering of a
video into a client device, when the client device requests a video that is
6
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
already being received by a different client from an access point. Id. at 8
(citing Estevez i-f 17). According to Appellants, because both Faucheux and
Estevez teach methods of buffering data at wireless devices, there is no
reason to buffer data at an access point (i.e., base transceiver station "BTS")
notwithstanding the absence of any disclosure of Appellants' conditional
limitation: buffering "in response to determining that the second content is
the same as the first content." Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner responds:
Appellant's specification and claims do not explicitly define
what the claimed 'base station controller' actually is (as it
pertains to the disclosed invention), and furthermore, the use of
the phrase "base station controller" has not been recited in the
claim language as actually being part of a "cellular
communications network" (as recited in Appellant's
arguments), but rather just as part of a communications system
(and in further claims, part of a network that can include wired
communications). The Examiner is therefore interpreting the
base station controller to be an element of the communications
network that is in communication with an access point, edge
device, base station, etc.; and so the servers disclosed in the
prior art references are being equated to the BSC of the present
invention because they are aiding the access points, edge
devices, base stations, etc. in transmitting and receiving data in
a communications network.
Ans. 14 (citing Faucheux i-fi-143, 67, and Fig. 1) (emphasis added).
We do not agree with the Examiner. At the outset, we note that claim
terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, (Fed.
Cir. 2004). However, the broadest-construction rubric does not give the
Examiner an unfettered license to ignore or misinterpret claim terms and
7
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
replace them with a different meaning. In re Suitco Surface Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Contrary to the Examiner's position and as
Appellants argue, both Appellants' claimed "base transceiver station (BTS)"
and "base station controller (BSC)" have a specific meaning in a cellular
network that is well-known to those skilled in that art. App. Br. 7; Reply Br.
2; see also Spec. i-f 2. We understand the base transceiver station (BTS) and
base station controller (BSC) are part of a base station subsystem (BSS) of a
cellular telephone network that is responsible for handling traffic and
signaling between a mobile device and a main switching center (MSC).
Typically, the BTS handles the radio interface to the mobile device and is
provided with radio equipment (transceivers and antennas) needed to service
each cell in the network. In contrast, the BSC handles the connection
between the mobile device and the MSC and provides all the control
functions, including, for example, radio channel setup, frequency hopping,
and handover. Because Appellants' claimed "base station controller (BSC)"
has a specific meaning in the art, the Examiner cannot interpret that term to
mean any "element of the communications network that is in communication
with an access point, edge device, base station, etc." such as a content server
2, shown in Faucheux's Figure 1. App. Br. 7.
Moreover, we are persuaded that neither Estevez nor Xie teaches or
suggests Appellants' claimed "buffering the first content at the BTS" in
response to "a control instruction from the BSC to the BTS instructing the
BTS to begin buffering the first content" as recited in Appellants' claims 1,
11, and 21.
8
Appeal2014-000727
Application 12/103,391
We further note Appellants' claims 1, 11, and 21 define the use of a
backhaul link along a communication path between a base transceiver
station "BTS" (an access system 121, shown in Appellants' Figure 1) and a
base station controller "BSC" (a service system 141, shown in Figure 1) and
the "backhaul link" has not been accounted for by the Examiner. Contrary
to Appellants' use of a "backhaul link," Faucheux teaches a communication
network 3 between an access point (e.g., base station) 5.1-5.3 and a content
server 2, which the Examiner interprets as Appellants' claimed "base station
controller "BSC. "'
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 and their
respective dependent claims 2, 4--7, 10, 12, 14--17, 20, and 22-23, which
Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-12, 14--17, and 20-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2,
4--7, 10-12, 14--17, and 20-23.
REVERSED
mp
9