Ex Parte Tang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2018

14375178 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2018)

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.
14/375,178 07/29/2014 Haitao Tang 089229.00875 9288
32294 7590 02/13/2018
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
EXAMINER
W OLDEMARIAM, AYELE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2018 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):
IPGENER ALTY C <§> SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte H AIT AO TANG, CLEMENS SUERBAUM, and
HENNING SANNECK
Appeal 2017-0080191
Application 14/375,178
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—10, 19-28, 39, and 40, which are all of the pending
claims. See App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy is identified as the real party in interest.
See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-008019
Application 14/375,178
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosure relates to “realizing multi-level self-organizing
network coordination, including self-organizing network coordination
procedures.” Abstract. Claims 1, 19, and 40 are independent. Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A method comprising
issuing from a lower management level comprising a
network element, first element manager or first domain
manager of a self-organizing network, a notification for self-
organizing network coordination notifying an action of at least
one self-organizing network function at the lower management
level, to a higher management level comprising a second
element manager, second domain manager or network manager
of the self-organizing network, the notification includes
coordination-related profile information of the at least one self­
organizing network function; and
receiving from the higher management level, a self-
organizing network coordination decision for the intended
action, the self-organizing network coordination decision
corresponding to either a confirmation of the intended action,
rejection of the intended action, or at least one action alternative
to the intended action.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 8—10, 19-21, 26—28, and 40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suerbaum (US 2011/0061063
Al; Mar. 10, 2011) and Centonza (WO 2011/072446 Al; June 23, 2011).
Final Act. 2—7.
2
Appeal 2017-008019
Application 14/375,178
Claims 4—7, 22—25, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suerbaum, Centonza, and Futaki (US 9,100,837 B2;
Aug. 4, 2015). Final Act. 7—11.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the appealed rejection for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“it
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). We are not persuaded the
Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the combination of
Suerbaum and Centonza fails to disclose or suggest “issuing ... a
notification” in which “the notification includes coordination-related profile
information of the at least one self-organizing network function,” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 11. Particularly, Appellants contend “Suerbaum
merely describes network elements located at a single level of a network,
and a notification requesting network element radio configuration
parameters” (App. Br. 13), whereas “in certain embodiments [in Appellants’
disclosure], the coordination-related profile information of at least one self­
organizing network function may allow for the compilation of information
2 The listing of Zhang in the heading of the rejection is a reference to
Centonza, as Centonza and Zhang are both inventors of WO 2011/072446
Al. See Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal 2017-008019
Application 14/375,178
originating from different management levels.” App. Br. 12—13 (citing
Spec. 9:1-13, 15:17-23).
Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that Suerbaum teaches that “in order then to
provide the desired functionality, a notification carrying the necessary
information is sent” (Ans. 13, quoting Suerbaum 1 63) and the broadest
reasonable interpretation “of the ‘coordination-related profile information’
could be any necessary information needed for self-configuration.” Ans.
13—14. Here, Appellants’ disclosure provides a non-limiting set of
examples of a self organizing network function profile information element,
and states the element “provides information about the [self organizing
network] function . . . that is important for coordination.” Spec. 15:18—23.
We agree with the Examiner that Suerbaum’s information is similarly
important for the network coordination. See Ans. 13; Final Act. 2—3.
Additionally, this “information element may represent a mandatory
qualifier” (Spec. 15:27) of the type taught in Suerbaum. See Suerbaum
77, 82. Thus we find the Examiner has reasonably interpreted, consistent
with the Specification, Appellants’ claimed “coordination-related profile
information” as encompassing Suerbaum’s notifications used “to provide the
desired functionality.”
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred because Centonza
“merely describes an interference coordination scheme between access
nodes (See [Centonza], page 18, lines 26—37). The access nodes described
in [Centonza], however, are not higher management level entities in a self­
organizing network.” App. Br. 14. Appellants contend that “an access node,
such as a femto access node, a macro access node, or a base station [as
4
Appeal 2017-008019
Application 14/375,178
described in Centonza], is a lower management level entity” whereas the
claimed “higher management level, on the other hand, comprises a second
element manager, second domain manager or network manager of the self-
organizing network, as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 15, citing Centonza
4:8-12, 6:16-18, 8:30-32, Spec. 6:23-24.
Appellants’ argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Centonza, “the access nodes serving
the interfered communication devices provide information to the interfering
node where after the interfering node can make a network level decision”
(Final Act. 3, quoting Centonza 6:51—52, emphasis added), in which
decisions include
adjusting] the transmission (Tx) power of the interfering station,
[] adjusting] PRB assignment to the users of the interfering
station, [] accepting] a suggested handover, switching] off one
or more radio transmissions, ask[ing] for new measurement
results.
Final Act. 3 (quoting Centonza 7:11—13). One skilled in the art would
understand that Centonza’s teaching of an interfering node making a
“network level decision,” suggests the decision is being made at “a higher
management level”—that is, the network level. See Ans. 14. “A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)), whose “inferences and
creative steps” we may consider {id. at 418). Further, we note that there is
no requirement for the prior art to “contain a description of the subject
matter of the appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.'” In re May, 574 F.2d
1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978).
5
Appeal 2017-008019
Application 14/375,178
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. We similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 19 and 40 not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 19,
23), as well as the rejections of the dependent claims which are not
separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 16—27.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 19-28, 39, and 40 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
6