Ex Parte Haumont et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 21, 2013

10827698 (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SERGE HAUMONT, HEIKKI LINDHOLM, LAURI
SODERBACKA, JUHA BACK, JUHAPEKKA NIEMI,
MATTI KESKINEN, and JARI HARTIKAINEN
____________________

Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-27, 29-43, 45, and 46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). 1
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Introduction
The claims are directed to location management in a mobile
telecommunication system (Spec. 1, §FIELD OF THE INVENTION).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Exemplary Claim
Claims 22 and 45, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
22. A method, comprising:

tracking a location of a mobile station in a radio access network
with an accuracy of a location area, the radio access network
providing connections between mobile stations and a core
network providing services to the mobile stations;

determining a reporting area comprising at least one location
area;

determining a change in the location of the mobile station when
the mobile station moves from a first location area to a second
location area;

1 Claims 7 and 28 are objected to and thus, are not before us.
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

3
reporting to the core network the change in the location of the
mobile station only when the mobile station also moves from a
first reporting area to a second reporting area; and

not reporting to the core network the change in the location of
the mobile station when the mobile station has not moved from
the first reporting area to the second reporting area.

45. An apparatus, comprising:

a receiver configured to receive messages reporting changes in a
location of a mobile station only when the mobile station moves from
a first reporting area to a second reporting area, each reporting area
comprising at least one location area;

wherein the receiver is further configured not to receive messages
reporting changes in a location of the mobile station when the mobile
station has not moved from the first reporting area to the second
reporting area; and

a definer configured to define a current service area of the mobile
station based on the reported location,

wherein the apparatus is configured to negotiate the size of the
reporting area with the radio access network.

REFERENCES

DeVaney
Beliveau
Madhavapeddy
Schiefer
Alperovich
Lawson-Jenkins
US 5,548,816
US 5,568,153
US 5,875,400
US 5,884,175
US 6,038,445
US 6,157,833
Aug. 20, 1996
Oct. 22, 1996
Feb. 23, 1999
Mar. 16, 1999
Mar. 14, 2000
Dec. 5, 2000
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

4

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:

(1) Claims 22, 37, 38, 40, 42, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§102(e) as being anticipated by Schiefer. Ans. 3.
(2) Claims 1-5, 8, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Schiefer, DeVaney,
and Lawson-Jenkins. Ans. 10.
(3) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiefer, DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins, and
Madhavapeddy. Ans. 21.
(4) Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schiefer, DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins,
and Alperovich. Ans. 22.
(5) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiefer, DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins, and
Beliveau. Ans. 23.
(6) Claims 21, 23-26, 29, 33-35, 41, 43, and 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Schiefer
and DeVaney. Ans. 25.
(7) Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiefer, DeVaney, and Madhavapeddy. Ans.
34.
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

5
(8) Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Schiefer and Alperovich. Ans. 36.
(9) Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schiefer and Beliveau. Ans. 37.2

We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

ISSUE 1
Claim Interpretation
Appellants argue the Examiner has improperly interpreted the terms
“reporting area,” “location area,” and “service area” (App. Br. 20).
According to Appellants, the Examiner should interpret each of the terms in
light of a respective and different patent (App. Br. 20). Appellants also
contend the Examiner’s claim construction is “totally unreasonable in view
of the distinction between cells and location areas in the specification and
the similar distinction between cells and locations in the prior art” (App. Br.
21).

ANALYSIS

2 The rejections of claims 9, 15, 30, and 36 have been withdrawn (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

6
We agree with the Examiner regarding the interpretation of “location
area,” “reporting area,” and “service area” (Ans. 2 and 3). Although we
agree with Appellants that the term “cell” may be interpreted as an area
covered by a base station, we do not agree the Examiner’s interpretations are
in error. Appellants point to several patents as supporting their proffered
definitions (App. Br. 20); however, these references do not persuade us the
terms should be construed as suggested by Appellants. Indeed, Appellants’
own Specification states the following, for example:
 “The location area consists of one or a plurality of cells, a cell being
the coverage area of a base station.” (col. 1, ll. 38-40).
 “A reporting area comprises one or a plurality of location areas.” (col.
2, ll. 45-46).
 “A service area is the location accuracy level needed for service
management purposes in the core network. . . . A service area may
comprise one or a plurality of reporting areas.” (col. 2, ll. 50-51 and ll.
56-57).
 “Alternatively, the reporting area can be equal to a service area, or
some specifically specified area.” (col. 2, ll. 61-62).
 “These location areas may be composed of a single cell, for example.”
(col. 4, ll. 5-6).
 The reporting area can equal the service area or be defined using an
arbitrary chosen area. (col. 5, ll. 15-16 and 19-20).
Therefore, broadly, but reasonably construing these terms consistent
with the Specification, we interpret each of “location area,” “reporting area,”
and “service area” as one or a plurality of cells. Appellants’ argument that
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

7
the claim only makes sense if the terms are construed to have different
meanings is not persuasive. We will not import limitations into the claims
absent sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the interpretation is in
error.
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “Construing
claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because
the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage.” Amer. Acad., 367 F.3d at 1364.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded to use Appellants’ interpretations.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claims 22, 40, 42, and 46
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 1 and 19-21

Issue 2a
Appellants assert Schiefer does not disclose “not reporting to the core
network the change in the location of the mobile station when the mobile
station has not moved from the first reporting area to the second reporting
area” as recited in claim 22. According to Appellants, Schiefer describes
that in each situation where a mobile station moves from a first location area
to a second location area, the radio access network in Schiefer does forward
the location information to the core network (App. Br. 23). Appellants
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

8
assert this is because Schiefer describes that when receiving a “location
update request” a base station passes on the request to an MSC (id.).
Issue 2: Does Schiefer disclose “not reporting to the core network the
change in the location of the mobile station when the mobile station has not
moved from the first reporting area to the second reporting area” as recited
in claim 22?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Schiefer discloses this limitation.
As we set forth above in Issue 1, we agree with the Examiner the recited
“reporting area” can be interpreted as Schiefer’s location area. Schiefer
describes updating the location information held in the radio core network,
for the mobile station when a mobile station moves from a location area (the
claimed “reporting area”) to another location area (“reporting area”) (col. 7,
ll. 12-24). Schiefer discloses not updating the information when moving
within the location area (col. 6, ll. 60-63). Indeed, we note Schiefer
describes a location update is not effected every time a mobile station moves
from one cell to another (the claimed “location area”) (col. 6, ll. 58-60).
Therefore, we find Schiefer discloses “not reporting to the core
network the change in the location of the mobile station when the mobile
station has not moved from the first reporting area to the second reporting
area” as recited in claim 22.
Issue 2b:
Appellants argue Schiefer does not describe “tracking a location of a
mobile station in a radio access network with an accuracy of a location area”
(App. Br. 24; Reply 5). Appellants assert in Schiefer, the tracking is not
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

9
within an accuracy of a cell and further, the location area in Schiefer is a
group of cells (App. Br. 24-25). Appellants contend Schiefer does not
describe whether the core network is informed about when a handover takes
place (Reply Br. 6-7). Appellants also urge us to interpret “tracking” as
taking place at the location area level of accuracy (not cell level) (Reply Br.
7). Further, according to Appellants, even if the Examiner’s claim
construction is adopted, Schiefer does not track in the radio access network
at the resolution of a cell (App. Br. 25).

Issue 2b: Has the Examiner erred in finding Schiefer discloses
“tracking a location of a mobile station in a radio access network with an
accuracy of a location area” as recited in claim 22?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that Schiefer discloses this limitation
(col. 4, ll. 47-58). Specifically, Schiefer discloses a mobile station moves
from one cell to another, control of handover of communications is effected
by the BSC (Base Station Controller) (id.). Thus, it follows tracking of the
mobile station in the radio access network is occurring. Further, since the
mobile station’s movement within a radio access network is being tracked as
the mobile station moves from cell to cell, we find the tracking is with an
accuracy of a cell. Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner’s
interpretation of “tracking” is in error. And thus, we find Schiefer discloses
“tracking a location of a mobile station in a radio access network with an
accuracy of a location area” as recited in claim 22.
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

10
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Schiefer describes:
not reporting to the core network the change in the location of the
mobile station when the mobile station has not moved from the first
reporting area to the second reporting area; and

tracking a location of a mobile station in a radio access network with
an accuracy of a location area

as recited in claim 22. With respect to independent claims 40, 42, and 46,
Appellants argue commensurately recited limitations based on the arguments
set forth for claim 22 (App. Br. 26-27). Therefore, we find Schiefer
anticipates the invention as recited in independent claims 22, 40, 42, and 46.

35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 1
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Schiefer,
DeVaney, and Lawson-Jenkins because none of the references teaches
“tracking in the radio access network of the location of the mobile station to
the accuracy of a location area,” “sending by the radio access network to the
core network a report if the mobile station has moved out of the reporting
area” and “not sending the core network said report if the mobile station has
not moved out of the reporting area” (App. Br. 28-29).
For the reasons set forth above and the Examiner’s findings, we find
Schiefer discloses these limitations. We are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings, and thus, Appellants’ arguments predicated on curing
the deficiencies of Schiefer are moot.
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

11

35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 19-21
Appellants assert Schiefer does not disclose using “a location area
configuration to track the location of the mobile station on the accuracy of
one location area” as well as “send the core network a report if the mobile
station has moved out of the reporting area” based on the reasons discussed
with respect to other claims as recited in claims 19 and 20 (App. Br. 33-34).
Similarly, Appellants assert Schiefer does not disclose the commensurately
recited limitations of claim 21 (App. Br. 37).
Further with respect to claims 20 and 21, Appellants argue further that
Schiefer does not disclose “not send the core network said report if the
mobile station has not moved out of the reporting area” as recited in claim
20 and commensurately recited in claim 21, also based on the reasons
discussed with respect to previous discussion (App. Br. 34 and 37).

Based on our reasoning above, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
22, 40, 42, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Further, the Examiner did not err
in rejecting claims 1 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 37
Appellants argue Schiefer does not describe that the reporting area
configuration is the same as the service area configuration (App. Br. 25).
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

12
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding Schiefer discloses
“wherein reporting area configuration is the same as service area
configuration” as recited in claim 37?
ANALYSIS
We initially note Appellants have not explicitly defined
“configuration” and have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Additionally, as set
forth above in Issue 1, “service area” may be broadly, but reasonably
construed to comprise one or a plurality of reporting areas (Spec., col. 2, ll.
56-57). Thus, the configuration of the reporting area described in Schiefer
may be the same as service area configuration. Additionally, we find
Schiefer discloses a location area configuration (Fig. 2, e.g. elements L1, L2,
and L3; see also col. 6, ll. 29-33). It follows we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding Schiefer describes “wherein reporting area
configuration is the same as service area configuration” as recited in claim
37.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

13
ISSUE 4
35 U.S.C. § 102: Claim 38
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 17

Appellants argue Schiefer does not describe that the information about
the service area configuration is given as a list of cells (App. Br. 25-26).
According to Appellants, Schiefer’s Figure 2 may show a location can
include multiple cells; however, Schiefer does not disclose a list of cells is
given (App. Br. 26).
Issue 4: Has the Examiner erred in finding Schiefer discloses
“wherein the information about the service area configuration is given as a
list of cells” as recited in claim 38?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner. Specifically, Schiefer discloses the
service area configuration may include a group of cells (col. 6, ll. 29-31).
Schiefer also discloses “[a] mobile station can tell when it has changed
location area because the BTS [Base Transceiver Station] of each cell
periodically transmits the identity of the cell and location area in which it is
located; by storing this location area information, the mobile station can
readily tell when it changes location area.” (Col. 7, ll. 7-11). Thus, we find
the mobile station is storing cells and the location area in which it is located
which may be referred to by the mobile station during movement to
determine when it has changed location area. It follows, we find Schiefer
discloses “wherein the information about the service area configuration is
given as a list of cells” as recited in claim 38.
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

14
Similarly, we find Schiefer discloses the commensurately recited
limitation in claim 17. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ISSUE 5
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 2-6, 8, 23-27, and 29
Appellants argue DeVaney does not teach multiple defined location
accuracy levels or selecting one of the location accuracy levels (App. Br. 29-
30). Instead, according to Appellants, the cited portions of DeVaney relate
to CLI lists (App. Br. 29-30).
Issue 5: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Schiefer and DeVaney teaches or suggests “wherein a plurality of location
accuracy levels is defined, each location accuracy level having location areas
of different sizes, and the radio access network selects one of these accuracy
levels to be used for tracking the mobile station” as recited in claim 2?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants. In relying on Schiefer, the Examiner
has indicated a cell in Schiefer corresponds to the recited “location area”
(Ans. 2-3). However, the Examiner now relies on DeVaney as teaching
defining “location accuracy levels,” each having location areas of different
sizes and selecting one of those accuracy levels to be used for tracking the
mobile station (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

15
We find DeVaney does not teach selecting one of the accuracy levels
to be used for tracking the mobile stations. Although we agree DeVaney
teaches CLI lists which may be different for different mobiles, based on the
cited portion of DeVaney (see Ans. 12 and col. 8, ll. 17-26), we do not agree
the RBS (radio base station) selects an accuracy level to be used for
tracking.
We also agree with Appellants that since the Examiner’s relies on
Schiefer’s cell as describing a “location area” as cells, DeVaney does not
teach “location areas of different sizes” (Reply 7-8).
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Schiefer and DeVaney teaches “wherein a plurality of location accuracy
levels is defined, each location accuracy level having location areas of
different sizes, and the radio access network selects one of these accuracy
levels to be used for tracking the mobile station” as recited in claim 2.
Claims 3-6 and 8 depend from claim 2 and thus stand with claim 2.
With respect to claim 23, we agree with the Examiner that Schiefer
teaches the recited limitations “tracking a location of a mobile station in a
radio access network with an accuracy of a location area;” “reporting to the
core network the change in the location of the mobile station only when the
mobile station also moves from a first reporting area to a second reporting
area;” and “not reporting to the core network the change in the location of
the mobile station when the mobile station has not moved from the first
reporting area to the second reporting area” as set forth in Issue 2. However,
we agree with Appellants that DeVaney does not teach the recited “wherein
a plurality of location accuracy levels is defined, each location accuracy
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

16
level having location areas of different sizes, and the radio access network
selects one of these accuracy levels to be used for tracking the mobile
station” (App. Br. 38). Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Schiefer and DeVaney teaches the invention as recited in
claim 23. Claims 24-27 and 29 depend from claim 23 and thus, stand with
claim 23.
Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-6, 8, 23-27, and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.

ISSUE 6
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 12-14, 33-35, 41, 43, and 45
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Schiefer,
DeVaney, and Lawson-Jenkins because none of the prior art teaches
“negotiation” (App. Br. 31 and 39-40). Specifically, Appellants contend the
portion of DeVaney relied upon by the Examiner describes that the RBS
“selects” (App. Br. 31). However, Appellants argue “selection” is not
“negotiation” (App. Br. 31).
Issue 6: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
teaches or suggests “wherein the core network and the radio access network
negotiate the size of the reporting area to be used” as recited in claim 12?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants. Although Appellants Specification does
not explicitly define “negotiation,” in light of the Specification (col. 8, ll. 22-
23 and ll. 31-33), we adopt a broad, but reasonable interpretation. We do
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

17
not find DeVaney teaches or suggests negotiation between the core network
and the radio access network of the size of the reporting area to be used as
recited in claim 12.
Claims 33, 41, and 43 recite commensurate limitations and thus,
DeVaney does not disclose the limitations as recited in claims 33, 41, and
43. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
references teaches or suggests “wherein the core network and the radio
access network negotiate the size of the reporting area to be used” as recited
in claim 12 and commensurately recited in claims 33, 41, and 43. Claims 13
and 14 and claims 34 and 35 which depend from claims 12 and 33,
respectively, thus stand with claims 12 and 33, respectively.
With respect to claim 45, although we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments with respect to Schiefer for the reasons set forth in
Issue 2, we agree with Appellants that DeVaney does not teach the apparatus
is configured to “negotiate” the size of the reporting area with the radio
access network (App. Br. 41).
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12-14, 33-35, 41,
43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 7
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 16
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious based on the term
“service area” not being described in the prior art (App. Br. 33). As
discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

18
interpretation of “service area.” Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner’s finding that the combination of Schiefer, DeVaney, and
Lawson-Jenkins teaches the invention as recited in claim 16. Therefore, the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 8
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 10, 11, 31, and 32
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Schiefer,
DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins, and Alperovich because Alperovich does not
disclose the mobile station is entitled to different quality of service values in
different reporting areas (App. Br. 35-36 and 42-43).
Issue 8: Has the Examiner erred in finding Alperovich teaches the
mobile station is entitled to different services and to different qualities of
service in different reporting areas as recited in claims 10 and 31 and 11 and
32, respectively?

ANALYSIS
We find Alperovich discloses providing different subscriber features
and mobile service towards different service areas, i.e., when in different
service areas, different services are provided (Fig. 6, elements 300 and 310;
col. 6, ll. 38-43 and 49-51). Thus, we find Alperovich teaches the limitation
recited in claims 10 and 31. However, we are not persuaded Alperovich
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

19
teaches or suggests “different qualities of service in different reporting
areas” as recited in claims 11 and 32.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding Alperovich teaches
“the mobile station is entitled to different services in different reporting
areas” as recited in claims 10 and 31. However, the Examiner erred in
finding Alperovich teaches “the mobile station is entitled to different
qualities of service values in different reporting areas” as recited in claims
11 and 32.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10 and 31 and
did err in rejecting claims 11 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 9
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 18
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Schiefer,
DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins, and Beliveau (App. Br. 36-37). Specifically,
Appellants contend Beliveau does not teach the location area configuration
is given as coordinates of the location area (App. Br. 36-37). Additionally,
Appellants contend modifying Schiefer to include the teaching of Beliveau
would not have been obvious since it is unclear Schiefer’s devices would
find the coordinate information useful in identifying cells of the location
area (App. Br. 37).
Issue 9: Has the Examiner erred in finding Beliveau and Schiefer
teaches “wherein the information about the reporting area configuration is
given as coordinates of the reporting area and the mobile station observes its
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

20
coordinates and initiates a location update when entering into a new
reporting area” as recited in claim 18?

ANALYSIS
We find Beliveau teaches the disputed limitations. Specifically,
Beliveau teaches a subscriber’s home area is given as coordinates of the
service area (col. 4, ll. 10-17). Further, Beliveau teaches defining an area
(which may vary in size) by designating the latitude and longitude
coordinates, and the altitude of a subscriber’s home location, as well as the
radius of the area from the home location (Abstract). Thus, we find
Beliveau teaches the location area configuration is given as coordinates of
the location area.
Additionally, we are not convinced such a modification to Schiefer
would not be obvious. As set forth by the Examiner, the claims do not recite
using the coordinate information in identifying cells of the location area
(Ans. 24). Further, the Examiner has set forth why it would have been
obvious to an ordinary artisan to combine the teachings of Beliveau into the
system of Schiefer (Ans. 24-25; Final Rej. 19-20). Appellants have not
presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner
improperly combined the references.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Schiefer, DeVaney, Lawson-Jenkins, and Beliveau teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in claim 18. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

21
ISSUE 10
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 39
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Schiefer and
Beliveau (App. Br. 43-44). Specifically, Appellants contend Schiefer does
not teach:
a) “tracking a location of a mobile station in a radio access
network with an accuracy of a location area;”
b) “reporting to the core network the change in the location of the
mobile station only when the mobile station also moves from a
first reporting area to a second reporting area” and
c) “not reporting to the core network the change in the location of
the mobile station when the mobile station has not moved from
the first reporting area to the second reporting area”
for the reasons set forth in discussion of other claims (App. Br. 43). Further,
Appellants argue Beliveau does not teach:
d) “wherein reporting area configuration is the same as service
area configuration” and
e) “wherein the information about the service area configuration is
given as coordinates of the service area”
(App. Br. 43-44).
Issue 10: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Schiefer and Beliveau teaches or suggests the disputed limitations as recited
in claim 39?

ANALYSIS
Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

22
With respect to a) – c) above, we find Schiefer teaches the recited
limitations as set forth in Issue 2 above. With respect to d), we find Schiefer
teaches the recited limitation as set forth in Issue 3 above.
We further find Beliveau teaches “the information about the service
area configuration is given as coordinates of the service area” as recited
based on the same reasons set forth above in Issue 9. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that giving a configuration as coordinates of the area would
have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan. Accordingly, the
Examiner did not err in finding Schiefer and Beliveau, respectively, teach or
suggest the limitations as recited in claim 39. Therefore, the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22, 37, 38, 40, 42, and 46 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Schiefer is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, 16-18, 19-21, 31, and 39,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-6, 8, 11-14, 23-27, 29, 32-35,
41, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2013-006080
Application 10/827,698

23

tj