Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13673289 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
13/673,289 11/09/2012 Jianglei Ma 30134/14533
(P15869USC7)
9629
114746 7590 03/29/2017
Ar>r>le Tno — FKM EXAMINER
150 Broadway
Suite 702
KO, SITHU
New York, NY 10038 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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 JIANGLEI MA, WEN TONG, MING JIA,
PEIYING ZHU, MO-HAN FONG,
and HANG ZHANG
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,2891
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 12—31, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Apple Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
Claimed Subject Matter
The claimed invention relates to a method and device applicable to a
soft handoff in an OFDMA (orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
access) system. Spec. Title; Abstract.
Claims 12, 21, and 30 are independent. Claim 12, reproduced below,
is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
12. A method for operating a base station controller in order
to facilitate handoffs for a subscriber station, the method
comprising:
receiving an active set list from a subscriber station via a
first base station among a plurality of base stations, wherein the
active set list indicates one or more of the base stations that
have been identified by the subscriber station as being
sufficiently strong for communication with the subscriber
station;
in response to determining that the active set list includes
more than one base station, sending an alert to the base stations
included in the active set list, wherein said alert initiates a
handoff mode with respect to the subscriber station;
receiving data destined for the subscriber station from a
network; and
transmitting the data to two or more of the base stations
included in the active set list, wherein the two or more base
stations transmit the data to the subscriber station.
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Soliman (US 6,055,428; Apr. 25, 2000) and Chen et al. (US
2003/0036384 Al; Feb. 20, 2003) (“Chen”).2 Final Act. 9-14.
2 The Examiner and Appellants refer to the Chen reference as “Chen ’384.”
For ease of reference, we refer to “Chen ’384” simply as “Chen.”
2
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
(2) Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, and Nishimura et al. (US 2004/0151157 Al; Aug. 5,
2004) (“Nishimura”). Final Act. 14—15.
(3) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, and Everson et al. (US 2003/0210663 Al; Nov. 13,
2003) (“Everson”). Final Act. 16-18.
(4) Claims 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Soliman, Chen, Chun et al. (US 2005/0048979 Al; Mar. 3,
2005) (“Chun”), and Dubuc et al. (US 2004/0190640 Al; Sept. 30, 2004)
(“Dubuc”). Final Act. 18-24.
(5) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, Chun, Dubuc, and Chen et al. (US 2005/0208959 Al;
Sept. 22, 2005) (“Chen ’959”). Final Act. 25-26.
(6) Claims 21, 22, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Soliman, Chen, and Chen (US 8,099,122 Bl; Jan. 17, 2012)
(“Chen ’122”). Final Act. 26-29.
(7) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, Nishimura, and Chen ’122. Final Act. 29.
(8) Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, Everson, and Chen ’122. Final Act. 29-30.
(9) Claims 25—28 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Soliman, Chen, Chun, Dubuc, and Chen ’122. Final Act.
30-32.
(10) Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Soliman, Chen, Chun, Dubuc, Chen ’959, and Chen ’122. Final Act.
32.
3
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 3—11; Reply Br. 2—6). We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in
the Answer (Ans. 3—15). We highlight and address specific arguments and
findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue Chen fails to teach “in response to determining that
the active set list includes more than one base station, sending an alert to the
base stations included in the active set list, wherein said alert initiates a
handoff mode with respect to the subscriber station,” as recited in claim 12.
App. Br. 4—9; Reply Br. 3—5. Appellants contend Chen’s Handoff Direction
Message is not an alert as claimed because “the Handoff Direction Message
is sent only to the subscriber station by the sectors having a traffic channel
assigned to the subscriber station” and “is not transmitted to the base
stations included in the active set list.” App. Br. 5—6 (citing Chen || 58—59,
61); see also Reply Br. 3^4.
The Examiner responds that Chen sends other information that
constitutes an alert sent to base stations included in an active set list, the alert
initiating a handoff mode with respect to a subscriber station, as claimed.
Ans. 5—7, 9-11 (citing Chen || 12—14); Final Act. 4, 12. We agree. Chen’s
“system controller . . . communicates information to each base station
corresponding to a new pilot in the Active Set which instructs each of these
base stations to establish communications with the subscriber station.’ '' See
Chen 112 (emphasis added); Ans. 5—6, 9-10. Additionally, Chen’s
4
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
controller “communicates] ‘information’ to the removed member of an
Active Set instructing it to terminate communications with the subscriber
station.” Ans. 9-10 (citing Chen | 14); see also Final Act. 4, 12. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that (1) Chen sends information that initiates a
handoff mode with respect to the subscriber station as claimed because the
information instructs the Active Set’s base stations to establish
communications with the subscriber when one or more base stations’ pilot
signals exceed a threshold; and (2) Chen also requests an Active Set’s base
station to terminate communications when the base station’s pilot signal falls
below a threshold, thereby handing off subscriber communications to other
base stations in the Active Set. See Chen || 12—14; Ans. 5—7, 9-10.
In the Reply, Appellants argue Chen’s information that is sent to a
base station does not initiate a handoff mode with respect to the subscriber
station, as required by the alert in claim 12. Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants
assert “[t]here is no indication that these instructions sent... to the base
station [in Chen] include a Handoff Direction Message or any message
identifying the pilots of the Active Set,” and, therefore, Chen “does not teach
or suggest that any of these base stations receives the Handoff Direction
Message on the basis of the active set list.” Reply Br. 4; see also App. Br. 8.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of error in the rejection because
they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 12, which does not
require the claimed alert to include a Handoff Direction Message or to
identity pilots of the active set list. Rather, claim 12 merely recites “sending
an alert to the base stations included in the active set list” and “said alert
initiates a handoff mode.” Ans. 11.
5
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
In addition, Appellants’ Specification broadly describes the alert as
follows: “[t]he base station controller will alert the base stations on the
active set list of the soft handoff ’ pursuant to “[t]he soft handoff. . . initiated
by the subscriber station, which will report the active set list to the base
station controller.” See Spec. 113 (emphasis added). Chen’s information
sent to each base station corresponding to a new pilot in the Active Set is
commensurate with the broad description of alert in Appellants’
Specification. Ans. 11; see Spec. 113.
Additionally, Appellants’ Specification describes the term “handoff’
as “generally used to refer to techniques for switching from one base station
104 to another during a communication session with a subscriber station.”
See Spec. 145 (emphasis added). Chen’s information described in
paragraphs 12—14 similarly assists a subscriber in switching base stations
when a “signal strength corresponding to a base station of the Active Set
drop[s] below a predetermined threshold (T_DROP)” and when “a pilot
signal of a base station in the Neighbor Set or Remaining Set exceeds a
predetermined threshold level (T_ADD).” See Chen || 12—13. Thus,
Chen’s information described in paragraphs 12—14 is commensurate with the
broad description of an alert that initiates a handoff in Appellants’
Specification. See Spec. 13, 45; Chen|| 12—13; Ans. 7, 9, 11.
We further note Appellants’ argument that “[tjhere is no indication
that [Chen’s] information communicated with the base station identifies
pilots of the Active Set to which the subscriber station is to communicate
through” does not address the Examiner’s rejection based on Chen in
combination with Soliman. App. Br. 8 (emphasis added). Soliman, not
Chen, is relied upon for teaching the “active set list indicates one or more of
6
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
the base stations that have been identified by the subscriber station as being
sufficiently strong for communication with the subscriber station” recited in
claim 12. Final Act. 9-10 (citing Soliman 5:57—62, 7:65—8:3, Figs. 2—7).
Appellants also contend Chen does not send an alert to the active set
list’s base stations in response to determining that the active set list includes
more than one base station, as recited in claim 12. Reply Br. 3^4; App. Br.
4, 9. We do not agree. Chen teaches an initial “Active Set contains only a
pilot signal of the first base station’’ while Chen monitors pilot signals’
strength of other base stations to determine if other base stations should be
added to the Active Set for communicating with the subscriber. See Chen
112 (emphasis added). When Chen’s controller decides “to establish
communication between [a] new base station and the subscriber unit,” the
controller “communicates information to each base station corresponding to
a new pilot in the Active Set which instructs each of these base stations to
establish communications with the subscriber station” such that “subscriber
station communications are thus routed through all base stations identified
by pilots in the subscriber station Active Set.” See Chen 112 (emphases
added); Ans. 5, 9, 11. Chen further communicates information to remove a
weakened base station from an Active Set of plural base stations. Ans. 5—6,
9—10 (citing Chen H 13—14). Thus, Chen’s instructions are sent to the
Active Set’s base stations in response to determining that the Active Set
includes more than a first base station. See Chen 112; Ans. 5,9. 11.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 12 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
findings, and we sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
7
Appeal 2016-003536
Application 13/673,289
as obvious over Soliman and Chen. For the same reasons, we sustain the
rejection of claim 13, not argued separately with particularity. App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the obviousness rejections of
independent claims 21 and 30 and dependent claims 14—20, 22—29, and 31
assert the rejections of these claims are in error for the same reasons as
independent claim 12. App. Br. 9—11. Thus, for the same reasons as claim
12, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (1) claim 14 as
obvious over Soliman, Chen, and Nishimura; (2) claim 15 as obvious over
Soliman, Chen, and Everson; (3) claims 16—19 as obvious over Soliman,
Chen, Chun, and Dubuc; (4) claim 20 as obvious over Soliman, Chen, Chun,
Dubuc, and Chen ’959; (5) claims 21, 22, and 30 as obvious over Soliman,
Chen, and Chen ’122; (6) claim 23 as obvious over Soliman, Chen,
Nishimura, and Chen ’122; (7) claim 24 as obvious over Soliman, Chen,
Everson, and Chen ’122; (8) claims 25—28 and 31 as obvious over Soliman,
Chen, Chun, Dubuc, and Chen ’122; and (9) claim 29 as obvious over
Soliman, Chen, Chun, Dubuc, Chen ’959, and Chen ’122.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12—31 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8