Ex Parte Kitazoe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12328606 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/328,606 12/04/2008
23696 7590 03/31/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masato Kitazoe
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.
080356 7213
EXAMINER
TANG,KIETG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASATO KIT AZOE
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20-50. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
1 Claims 3, 7, 11, 15, and 19 were previously cancelled.
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
INVENTION
The invention is directed to managing handover failure in wireless
communication. (Spec. i-f 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced
below:
A method for managing a wireless communication
handover operable upon a user equipment, comprising:
identifying, by the user equipment, a handover failure in
relation to transferring of the user equipment among base
stations; and
selecting, by the user equipment, an optimized cell in
which to transfer the user equipment when the handover failure
is identified, wherein the user equipment selects the optimized
cell by evaluating at least one cell characteristic and selecting the
cell based on a result of the evaluation.
REFERENCES
Lee US 6,246,872 B 1 June 12, 2001
Wei US 2005/0239472 Al Oct. 27, 2005
Xu [herein '398] US 7,200,398 Bl Apr. 3, 2007
Xu US 2007/0173244 Al July 26, 2007
Fischer US 2009/0061878 Al Mar. 5, 2009
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fischer and Xu. (Final Act. 4.)
Claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fischer, Xu, and Wei. (Final Act. 13.)
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fischer, Xu, and '398. (Final Act. 15.)
2
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
Claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37--41, 43--47, 49, and 50 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fischer
and Lee. (Final Act. 16.)
Claims 24, 30, 36, 42, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fischer, Lee, and '398. (Final Act.
26.)
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fischer and
Xu teaches or suggests "wherein the user equipment selects the optimized
cell by evaluating at least one cell characteristic and selecting the cell based
on a result of the evaluation" as recited in claim 1 and corresponding
limitations of claims 5, 9, 13, and 17?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Fischer and
Lee teaches or suggests "instructing the user equipment on at least one of a
cell upon which to transfer and a frequency to use based upon the anticipated
handover failure" as recited in claim 21 and corresponding limitations of
claims 27, 33, 39, and 45?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17
We select claim 1 as representative of the group of claims comprising
claims 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 as Appellant has not argued any of the other claims
in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 1 recites "wherein the user equipment selects the optimized cell
by evaluating at least one cell characteristic and selecting the cell based on a
3
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
result of the evaluation." Independent claims 5, 9, 13, and 17 recite
corresponding limitations.
Appellant argues Fischer fails to teach or suggest "the [user
equipment (UE)] selects the right target cell based on a result of evaluation
of a cell characteristic." (App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted).) We agree with
the Examiner that Fischer's paragraphs 27, 28, and 44 teach that the source
eNB makes a handover decision based on measurements reported by the user
equipment (UE). (Ans. 7-8.) The measurements reported by the UE are
within the scope of the evaluated cell characteristics as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues Fischer teaches the source eNB selects the target
eNB while the claims require the UE select the target cell. (Reply Br. 6.)
However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds Xu teaches
the UE selects an optimized cell. (Ans. 8.) We agree with the Examiner.
Xu's paragraph 34 teaches the UE selects the cell with the best signal
quality. (Ans. 10-11.) The signal quality is within the scope of the
evaluation of "cell characteristics" recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues the Examiner has not provided a legally sufficient
reason for combining the utilized references to reject the claims. (App. Br.
9.) Appellant further argues the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight
in combining Fischer and Xu because Fischer deals with procedures during a
radio link failure of a handover procedure, but Xu only deals with
procedures for establishing an initial service connection. (App. Br. 13.) The
Examiner disagrees finding sufficient motivation has been provided from Xu
abstract to combine Fischer and Xu for the purpose of increasing service
4
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
access probability and improving service quality. (Ans. 3.) Specifically, the
Examiner finds motivation to combine Fischer and Xu "in order to greatly
increase service access probability and improve service quality, thus
increasing subscribers' satisfaction toward services and promoting service
expansion and application (Xu, abstract)." (Ans. 3; Final Act. 6.) We find
the Examiner's explicit motivation to combine the references is reasonable.
Appellant does not address the Examiner's explicit motivation to combine.
(See App. Br. 9, 13; Reply Br. 9.) Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error
in the Examiner's motivation to combine Fischer and Xu.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5, 9, 13,
and 17.
Dependent Claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18
Regarding claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18, Appellant argues Wei "fails to
overcome the shortcomings in the teachings of Fischer and Xu noted above."
(App. Br. 14.) However, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection
of base claims 1, 9, and 17 based on Fischer and Xu. Therefore, by the
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and
18.
Dependent Claims 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20
Regarding claims 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, Appellant argues '398 "fails to
overcome the shortcomings in the teachings of Fischer and Xu noted above."
(App. Br. 14.) However, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection
of base claims 1, 9, and 17 based on Fischer and Xu. Therefore, by the
5
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4, 8, 12, 16, and
20.
Claims 21-23, 25--29, 31-35, 37-41, 43-47, 49, and 50
We select claim 21 as representative of the group of claims
comprising claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37--41, 43--47, 49, and 50 as
Appellant has not argued any of the other claims in this group with
particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 21 recites "instructing the user equipment on at least one of a
cell upon which to transfer and a frequency to use based upon the anticipated
handover failure." Independent claims 27, 33, 39, and 45 recite
corresponding limitations.
Appellant argues "Fischer fails to teach or suggest that the source
eNB instructs the UE at all in an anticipated radio link failure scenario."
(App. Br. 15-16 (underline added).) Appellant's contentions are not
commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 21. Claim 21
recites instructing the UE "based upon the anticipated handover failure" but
does not require instructions to the UE "during" or "in" the handover failure.
The Examiner finds Fischer's paragraphs 28-34 teach the source eNB
instructing the UE to transfer to the target eNB via the HANDOVER
COMMAND message. (Ans. 16-17.) We agree with the Examiner that the
HANDOVER COMMAND to the UE is instructing the UE on a cell upon
which to transfer as recited in claim 21. See id. The Examiner further finds
Fischer's paragraph 66 teaches anticipating handover failure. (Ans. 18.) In
particular, the Examiner cites Fischer's paragraph 66 teaching "it is possible
6
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
to anticipate [a radio link failure] and to systematically initiate handover
procedures to these most probable target cells." Id. We agree with the
Examiner that anticipating a radio link failure corresponds to anticipating a
handover failure as recited in claim 21. See id.
Appellant argues that the anticipated handover failure of Fischer's
paragraph 66 is a separate embodiment and may not be combined with
Fischer's paragraphs 28-32, which teach the source eNB instructing the UE
via the HANDOVER COMMAND. (See Reply Br. 13.) Appellant's
arguments are unpersuasive for two reasons. First, while anticipation
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 may not combine features from separate
embodiments, see Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2008), the rejection of claims 21 et seq. is based on obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (See Final Act. 16-28.) Second, the different
scenarios of Fischer's paragraphs 28-32 (corresponding to figure 3) and
paragraph 66 (corresponding to figure 4) are not separate embodiments.
Fischer's paragraphs 62---63 teach, "A handover process in case of radio link
failure is depicted in FIG. 4 .... The beginning of the procedure up to step
S6 is quite similar to that of the procedure discussed above with reference to
FIG. 3 and will not be described again here." Thus, the description of
Fischer's paragraph 66 relating to the radio link failure scenario includes
within it the description the procedure of Fischer's figure 3. Thus, the
anticipated handover failure scenario of Fischer's paragraph 66 is not a
separate embodiment from the subject matter of Fischer's paragraphs 28-32.
Appellant argues that Lee fails to overcome the above discussed
shortcomings of Fischer. (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 13-15.) However, as
discussed above, we find no deficiency in the Examiner's findings in regard
7
Appeal2014-006145
Application 12/328,606
to Fischer. Therefore, by the preponderance of the evidence, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred.
For all of the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 21-23, 25-29, 31-35, 37--41, 43--47, 49, and 50.
Dependent Claims 24, 30, 36, 42, and 48
Regarding claims 24, 30, 36, 42, and 48, Appellant argues '398 "fails
to overcome the shortcomings in the teaching[ s] of Fischer and Lee noted
above." (App. Br. 17.) However, we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's
rejection of base claims 21, 27, 33, 39, and 45 based on Fischer and Lee.
Therefore, by the preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims
24, 30, 36, 42, and 48.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-
18, and 20-50 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8