Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2015

11770551 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

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.
11/770,551 06/28/2007 Ki-tae LEE 1398-050 6575
66547 7590 03/20/2015
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
FARAGALLA, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2015 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
____________________
Ex parte KI-TAE LEE
____________________

Appeal 2013-000882
Application 11/770,551
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 6, 12, and 15 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a cell reselection
method and mobile terminal using the same. Abstract.

Exemplary Claim
Appeal 2013-000882
Application 11/770,551

2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A cell reselection method for a mobile communication
terminal, the cell reselection method comprising:

calculating first path loss parameters of a serving cell and
neighboring cells;

determining whether the serving cell is suitable for a
communication service using the first path loss parameter
thereof;

performing, if the serving cell is determined to be
unsuitable, a cell reselection operation;

calculating, if no suitable cell is found through the cell
reselection operation, a second path loss parameter of the
serving cell using information on a distance from a base
station of the serving cell to the mobile communication
terminal;

redetermining whether the serving cell is suitable using the
second path loss parameter thereof; and

setting a mode of operation of the mobile communication
terminal on the basis of the redetermination result,

wherein calculating the second path loss parameter further
comprises:

computing an error compensation value for the first path
loss parameter using the distance information of the
serving cell to the mobile communication terminal,
received from the base station of the serving cell; and

adding the error compensation value to the first path loss
parameter to produce the second path loss parameter.
Appeal 2013-000882
Application 11/770,551

3

REFERENCES
Hsu US 7,299,045 Nov. 20, 2007
Kostic
Shioda
US 2007/0191044 A1
EP 1 089 581
Aug. 16, 2007
Sept. 27, 2000

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu et al (US 7,299,045), Shioda et al (EP
1 089 581) and Kostic (US 2007/0191044). Ans. 5–12.

ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1–5, 7, 9–11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Hsu, Shioda, and
Kostic. App. Br. 4–7. The issue presented by these arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hsu,
Shioda, and Kostic teaches or suggests “computing an error compensation
value for the first path loss parameter using the distance information of the
serving cell to the mobile communication terminal,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 11?

Appeal 2013-000882
Application 11/770,551

4
ANALYSIS
Initially, we determine distance information is not defined explicitly
in the Specification.
Appellant argues that contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, distance
information is “simply information specifying distance between the mobile
communication terminal and the service cell” and that is specifically recited
in the claim. App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends the cited portions
of Kostic, on which the Examiner relies, do not disclose computing an error
compensation value using the distance information or even use of distance
information. App. Br. 4. Instead, Appellant asserts, Kostic describes
comparing pilot signals to a pilot threshold to adjust a reference power (Pref)
or another power control parameter. Reply Br. 2 (citing Kostic ¶ 29).
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner contends
Kostic teaches the forward link frame error rate may be a composite for all
the active legs of a determination may be made for each active leg 52a–52c.
Ans. 13. According to the Examiner, Kostic further teaches if the forward
link frame error rate or if the frame error rate for every active leg 52a–52c is
greater than the target rate, then the current Pref setting for each leg 52a–52c
is adjusted upwards by Pref__Up dB. Ans. 13–14. The Examiner then
determines the error rate would be affected by the distance of the mobile
station from the base station. Ans. 14. We find the latter disclosure teaches,
at best, computing an error rate that is affected by the leg length. The
Examiner has not shown how Kostic teaches or at least suggests computing
an error compensation value using the distance information.
Appeal 2013-000882
Application 11/770,551

5
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
combination of Hsu, Shioda, and Kostic fails to teach or suggest the
limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 11. The dependent claims,
claims 2–5, 7–10, 13, 14, and 16–19, stand with their respective independent
claims. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–11,
13, 14, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Hsu,
Shioda, and Kostic.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7–11, 13, 14, and 16–19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu, Shioda, and
Kostic is reversed.

REVERSED

dw