Ex Parte Kikuchi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10574664 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

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.
10/574,664 03/31/2006 Tsuneyuki Kikuchi N0029.1749 7638
32172 7590 03/27/2013
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1633 Broadway
NEW YORK, NY 10019
EXAMINER
MEHRPOUR, NAGHMEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 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 TSUNEYUKI KIKUCHI
____________________

Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 and 22-26.2 Claims 5, 13 and 21 have been
canceled. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to a wireless line sharing network system in a
mobile communication network system for sharing licensed radio
frequencies with a plurality of communication carriers. Spec., ¶ [0001].
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A wireless line sharing network system in a mobile
communication network system capable of a plurality of
communications at licensed radio frequencies, comprising:
a plurality of user terminals that subscribe to a plurality
of communication carriers, respectively;
a plurality of wireless base stations capable of
communicating with the respective user terminals at the radio
frequencies;
a control station for controlling the wireless base stations
and connecting each of the user terminals to a corresponding
communication carrier network;
a call acceptance controller for, when there is a request
for call connection to a user terminal, accepting the call as well
as reserving bandwidth in response to the call connection
request based on at least carrier band information indicating
radio bandwidth allocation patterns defined by the respective
communication carriers on a contract and carrier use condition

1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Jan. 6, 2010) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 19,
2010).
2 The real party in interest is NEC Corporation. Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664

3
information indicating the current use conditions of the
bandwidth of the respective communication carriers, and
updating the carrier use condition information; and
a bandwidth change means for sequentially changing
bandwidths allocated to call connected user terminals so that
the used bandwidth of each of the communication carriers is in
a predetermined range based on at least the carrier band
information, the carrier use condition information and user use
condition information indicating the current use conditions of
the call connected ones of the user terminals.

Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 and 22-26 under 35
U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Mazzara (US
2003/0087643 A1, May 8, 2003) and Haartsen (US 2005/0048985 A1, Mar.
3, 2005). Ans. 5-9.

ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Mazzara and Haartsen teaches or suggests “a bandwidth change means for
sequentially changing bandwidths allocated to call connected user terminals
so that the used bandwidth of each of the communication carriers is in a
predetermined range based on at least the carrier band information, the
carrier use condition information and user use condition information
indicating the current use conditions of the call connected ones of the user
terminals” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend that Haartsen and Mazzara fail to teach or suggest
the bandwidth changing means as recited in claim 1. Br. 10. Specifically,
Appellants contend that Haartsen, ¶¶ [0019], [0020], teaches assigning
remote terminals to base station radios sequentially based on the remote
Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664

4
terminals requested bandwidth ratio. Id. Appellants further contend the
assignment based on “bandwidth ratio” is not the same as sequentially
changing the bandwidth allocated to call connected user terminals. Id.
The Examiner responds that Haartsen, ¶¶ [0019] and [0020], teaches
or suggests allocation of bandwidth based on the bandwidth ratios, which
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is the allocation of
bandwidth as compared to total available bandwidth. Ans. 11. The
Examiner further argues that one skilled in the art would understand that
Haartsen teaches that “bandwidth can be allocated and re-allocated
dynamically among system users by assigning and re-assigning time slots on
the carrier signals to the users according to the user’s needs.” Ans. 12
(quoting Haartsen, ¶[0038]) (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that bandwidth ratios in Haartsen are not the same as allocating
bandwidth as claimed. Br. 10. Appellants admit that “Haartsen does
sequentially assign something,” but question whether allocating bandwidth
ratios is equivalent to allocating bandwidth. Br. 10. We find that Haartsen
teaches or suggests that allocating or assigning bandwidth ratios between
radio base stations and a plurality of remote terminals by allocating time
slots. See Haartsen ¶¶ [0018], [0019] and [0020]. Haartsen expressly states
that it “dynamically” allocates and re-allocates bandwidth by “assigning and
re-assigning time slots on the carrier signals to the users according to the
users’ needs.” Haartsen, ¶ [0038]; see Ans. 12. As Haartsen teaches, the
allocation of time slots, by specifying the bandwidth ratio, provides the
bandwidth allocated to the user. Haartsen, ¶¶ [0018], [0019] and [0038]. In
other words, Haartsen teaches or suggests that the assigning of bandwidth
Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664

5
ratios by assigning timeslots is a method of dynamically allocating
bandwidth. Ans. 11, 12; see Haartsen, ¶¶ [0018], [0019], [0020] and [0038].
We agree with Appellant that Haartsen discloses sequential
assignments (Br. 10), but also find that Haartsen assigns radio resources
“between a multi-radio base station and a plurality of remote terminals” by
“allocating slots in the communication links.” Haartsen, ¶¶ [0018], [0019].
The allocating of slots in communication links is performed sequentially
based on the requested and allocated bandwidth ratio. Id. Based on the
record before us, we find that Haartsen teaches or suggests sequential
assignment of bandwidth ratios based on user need. See Ans. 12; Haartsen
¶ [0038].
Based on the foregoing, we find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Mazzara and Haartsen teach or suggest “a bandwidth change
means” as recited in claim 1. Because Appellants make no separate
arguments for independent claims 10, 18 and 26 and dependent claims 2-4,
6-9, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, 20 and 22-25, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 and 22-26 under 35 U.S.C §103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-12,
14-20 and 22-26 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)(iv) (2011).

Appeal 2010-009473
Application 10/574,664

6
AFFIRMED

msc