10914451 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Jeong et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 18, 2012

10914451 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/914,451 08/09/2004 Kyeong-In Jeong 678-1642 5577 66547 7590 01/19/2012 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER CHAN, RICHARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/19/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte KYEONG-IN JEONG and SOENG-HUN KIM ________________ Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, THOMAS S. HAHN, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 2 Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 10-21 and 24-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appealed independent claims 10 and 16 are exemplary and read: 10. A method for receiving a packet data service by at least one user equipment located in a cell not supporting the packet data service in a mobile communication system including a radio network controller that includes a plurality of cells distinguished by different frequency areas in the same geographical area, the method comprising: receiving information on a cell of a frequency area supporting the packet data service from the radio network controller; performing cell reselection to the cell of the frequency area supporting the packet data service using the received information; and receiving the packet data service through an assigned radio resource in the cell. 16. A method of providing a packet data service by a radio network controller in a mobile communication system including the radio network controller that controls a plurality of cells which are distinguished by different frequency areas in the same geographical area, the method comprising the steps of: providing information on a cell of a frequency area supporting the packet data service to at least one user equipment located in a cell of a frequency area not supporting the packet data service; assigning a radio resource for the packet data service; and providing the packet data service to the at least one user equipment through the assigned radio resource. Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 3 Rejections1 The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), rejected claims 10-13, 15- 20, 24, 25, and 27-29 as being anticipated by Oikarinen (EP 1 318 690 A1; June 11, 2003) (Final Action 3-8). The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected: 1. Claims 14 and 26 as being obvious over Oikarinen and Wang (US 6,728,203 B2; Apr. 27, 2004) (Final Action 8-9); and 2. Claim 21 as being obvious over Oikarinen and Andersson (US 6,434,380 B1; Aug. 13, 2002) (Final Action 10). Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend Oikarinen is a deficient anticipation reference because it explicitly or inherently fails to teach user equipment (UE) located in a cell that does not support packet data service (App. Br. 6), and to teach a radio network controller that provides a plurality of cells in the same geographical area distinguished by different frequencies and that also provides information to the UE for a cell supporting packet data service (App. Br. 7). Issue Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 10 and 16 as being anticipated because Oikarinen explicitly or inherently fails to teach disputed limitations? 1 Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 10 and 16 (App. Br. 4-10; Reply Br. 3-10), but do not separately argue dependent claims 11- 15, 17-21, and 24-29 (App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 10). Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 4 ANALYSIS We reviewed the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 10 and 16 in light of Appellants’ contentions, and we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites that “user equipment [is] located in a cell not supporting . . . packet data service,” and Appellants assert that this limitation is not taught by Oikarinen (App. Br. 6). The Examiner responds with an interpretation of the limitation that covers a UE “located in a base station cell site wherein packet data service (specifically data intensive transmissions) is currently not supported by the cell” (Ans. 11). Then the Examiner references Oikarinen paragraphs ¶¶ [0016] and [0029] and finds: Th[e] first [Oikarinen] network is described to be a “radio access network or base station system”. The second system is described in detail in paragraph [0031] wherein it is described as a base station as well. Olkarinen [sic] continues to disclose in paragraph [0044] wherein the network detects there is a need to transfer data between the user equipment and the network. If the first network does not have the resources to handle the data communication, a paging message must be sent to the UE in order to provide commands to the UE to switch over to a second network. The examiner believes this passage convincingly discloses wherein the UE is connected to a first network, and is not connected to the second network until expressly given commands within a paging message to do so. Therefore, the UE can not be connected to a network that supports packet data service. (Ans. 11.) Appellants dispute the Examiner’s interpretation because “‘currently’ does not appear in the recitation at issue” (Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend “the UE in the recitation at issue is located in a cell not supporting, i.e., Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 5 cannot support, the packet data service, irrespective of any current or even future time” (Reply Br. 5). We disagree with Appellants’ interpretation. No persuasive evidence to support Appellants’ interpretation has been found in the record, and the claim nowhere restricts the subject cell so that it “cannot support” packet data service irrespective of time or all the time. The claimed cell is not precluded from being able to support packet data service in the past or in the future. We, accordingly, agree with the Examiner’s construction. Further, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s above reproduced findings as to Oikarinen teaching the so-construed limitation. Appellants’ arguments concerning this limitation are unavailing. Claim 10 further recites “a radio network controller that includes a plurality of cells distinguished by different frequency areas in the same geographical area.” Appellants assert that this limitation is not anticipated by Oikarinen because no radio network controller is taught that “includes a plurality of cells distinguished by different frequency areas in the same geographical area” (App. Br. 8). The Examiner responds with identification of finding the reference describes radio network controller RNC 146 handling B-nodes that serve several cells and handles frequency management (Ans. 14; see Oikarinen ¶¶ [0029]-[0030]; Fig. 1). Appellants respond by contending that the Oikarinen RNC is “in the first system (i.e. radio access network), and clearly is not a radio network controller that includes a plurality of cells distinguished by different frequency areas in the same geographical area” (Reply Br. 6 (footnote omitted)). Reviewing in context the Oikarinen disclosures relied on by the Examiner, we find a first radio system is identified as radio access network 130 with included radio network subsystems 140 and 150 and that subsystem 140 includes RNC 146 Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 6 (¶ [0027]; Fig.1). Further, we find the Oikarinen RNC 146 is described as controlling B-nodes 142 and 144 including allocations of frequencies to the B-nodes that serve as cells (¶¶ [0028]-[0030]). Accordingly, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s above reproduced findings as to Oikarinen teaching the identified limitation. Appellants’ arguments concerning this limitation are unavailing. Claim 10 also recites with respect to the claimed radio network controller that “information on a cell of a frequency area supporting the packet data service [is received] from the radio network controller.” Appellants contend that Oikarinen does not teach receiving transfer information from a RNC (App. Br. 7). Instead, according to Appellants Oikarinen teaches at ¶ [0039] et seq. receiving transfer information from a base transceiver station or another network element (id.). The Examiner responds with identified findings from Oikarinen that the limitation is taught (Ans. 13; see Oikarinen ¶¶ [0029], [0040]). Appellants, in response, conclude that the information recited in the limitation is for cell reselection and as such is different information from radio access technology (RAT) system change information disclosed by Oikarinen (Reply Br. 6; see Oikarinen ¶ [0042], Tables 1, 2). Appellants’ conclusion is unavailing because though Appellants seem to contend system change information is different from the recited information, the difference is not specified. Further, Appellants acknowledge that the Oikarinen taught RNC performs “inter-cell handover” (App. Br. 6; see Oikarinen ¶ [0029]). The Examiner also references the Oikarinen ¶ [0029] disclosures and finds the taught RNC manages resources (Ans. 13). The Examiner further references Oikarinen ¶ [0040] disclosures and finds the taught RNC monitors data transfer capacity Appeal 2009-009946 Application 10/914,451 7 and if the capacity is insufficient, a paging message is sent to the UE comprising a command to start cell reselection (Ans. 13). Based on our review of Oikarinen, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings, including that Oikarinen anticipates the identified limitation. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 and also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 11-15, 28, and 29 that are not separately argued. Claim 16 Appellants contend claim 16 is not anticipated for “reasons similar to the . . . reasons why [c]laim 10 is not anticipated” (App. Br. 8). Appellants’ referenced reasons are addressed supra. Accordingly, for the same reasons we sustain the rejection of claim 16 and also sustain the rejections of claims 17-21 and 24-27 that are not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-21 and 24-29 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)(1)(v). AFFIRMED babc