12636640 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Uusitalo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 25, 2018

12636640 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/636,640 12/11/2009 72165 7590 07/27/2018 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT 004770 1100 13TH STREET SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mikko A. Uusitalo 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. 004770.02239 1748 EXAMINER D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2414 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/27/2018 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): PTO-72165@bannerwitcoff.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKKO A. UUSITALO, PASI RINNE-RAHKOLA, TIMO RANTALAINEN, and ARI AHTIAINEN Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 1 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVINE. BRANCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. Technology The application relates to "providing an advance indication of channels available for use by a mobile device travelling along a geographic path." Spec., Abstract. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer code configured to, with the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to at least: receive, from a mobile device in a current cell, signaling identifying a geographic path, predicted to be taken by the mobile device, that extends across two or more cells of a network, wherein each of the two or more cells is different from the current cell, and wherein at least one of the two or more cells is non-adjacent to the current cell; determine a listing of white-space channels indicating which are available for use in each cell along the geographic path, including a first indication of which are available for use in a first of the two or more cells and a second indication of which are available for use in a second of the two or more cells, wherein the cells are cells/geographical regions of a white-space device database; determine, from the listing of white-space channels, which available white-space channel is indicated as being available for use in at least two cells along the geographic path by at least determining, from the first indication, that the available white-space channel is indicated as being available in the first of the two or more cells and determining, from the second indication, that the available white-space channel is indicated as being available in the second of the two or more cells; and provide an indication of the available white-space channel to the mobile device. 2 Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 Rejection Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of "AAPA" (Applicant's Admitted Prior Art), Rohani (US 6,195,342 Bl, issued Feb. 27, 2001) or Marlevi (US 5,572,221, issued Nov. 5, 1996) together with Raith (US 6,711,408 Bl, issued Mar. 23, 2004), and Ramsdale (US 5,265,263, issued Nov. 23, 1993). Final Act. 7-18. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that either 1) the combination of AAP A, Rohani, Raith, and Ramsdale or 2) the combination of AAP A, Marlevi, Raith, and Ramsdale would have taught or suggested "a geographic path, predicted to be taken by the mobile device, that extends across two or more cells of a network, wherein each of the two or more cells is different from the current cell, and wherein at least one of the two or more cells is non-adjacent to the current cell," "a listing of white-space channels indicating which are available for use in each cell along the geographic path," and an "available white-space channel is indicated as being available for use in at least two cells along the geographic path," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 17 and 19-21? ANALYSIS At the outset, we note our agreement with Appellants that "[t]he Examiner should separately and distinctly address [the Examiner's multiple rejections] under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 and not lump the rejections and the reasoning together." App. Br. 9-10 (citing MPEP Â§ 707.07(Â±)). 3 Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 Independent claims Claim 1 is exemplary and recites "a geographic path, predicted to be taken by the mobile device, that extends across two or more cells of a network, wherein each of the two or more cells is different from the current cell, and wherein at least one of the two or more cells is non-adjacent to the current cell," "determin[ing] a listing of white-space channels indicating which are available for use in each cell along the geographic path," and "determin[ing], from the listing of white-space channels, which available white-space channel is indicated as being available for use in at least two cells along the geographic path." Appellants argue that no combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests such a geographic path, a listing of white-space channels available for use in each cell along the path, and a determination of a commonly- available channel. App. Br. 10-13, Reply Br. 2-8. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner appears to understand the gist of Appellants' claimed invention. See Ans. 12. The Examiner has drafted a figure, reproduced below, that depicts the claimed invention. Id. 4 Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 FIGURE #2 thtr:-111~} ~$ ~t~~? ~~:~Â·rr::-)<>t~{~l-e:'$'$:i{=*bt<::: KÂ·f,;~n}~iiÂ·~ Sn hts\b a:rs. 2 .~r~-.~: OT$ "3- Figure #2 illustrates a mobile device and its predicted path from the current cell (the circle on the left, centered on BTS 1) across two other cells (the circles in the center and right, centered on BTS 2 and BTS 3, respectively). See Ans. 12. Referring to Figure #2, the Examiner states "the appellant's design takes into consideration a THIRD BTS ( eg. BTS 3) which is non-adjacent to BTS 1 and a commonly available channel is determined which exists in both BTS 2 and BTS 3 (in this example, it is channel 7)." Id. The Examiner finds that "the AAP A does not have the same detailed design to track the predicted path across multiple cells, determine all available channels in these cells and then determine which channel(s) are common and can be used across these multiple cells." Id. at 5. 5 Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 Despite the Examiner's apparent understanding of Appellants' claimed invention, we do not find clearly articulated reasoning that any combination of the cited prior art teaches or suggests the claimed predicted geographic path that includes two or more cells, other than the current cell, one of which is non-adjacent to the device's current cell together with a determination, from a listing of available channels, of a commonly-available channel. To be sure, several references disclose paths from a current location to neighboring cells (see, e.g., Marlevi, Abstract; Ramsdale, Figs. 2 and 3) and even a path to a single "neighboring" cell that is non-adjacent (see Rohani, Fig. 3). Raith even teaches a multi-cell route and storing "frequently traveled routes." See, e.g., Raith 6:31-55. But we do not find articulated reasoning as to how the cited prior art may be combined to teach or suggest a multi-cell path and "determin[ing] a listing of white-space channels indicating which are available for use in each cell along the geographic path, including a first indication of which are available for use in a first of the two or more cells and a second indication of which are available for use in a second of the two or more cells" and an "available white-space channel ... for use in at least two cells along the geographic path" as recited in all independent claims. For example, we agree with the Examiner that Ramsdale teaches a group of cells can share a common channel (see Ans. 15 ( citing Ramsdale Abstract)), but the Examiner fails to clearly articulate whether and why it would have been obvious to determine if two cells on a path are within the same group and share a common channel. 6 Appeal2017-002449 Application 12/636,640 Accordingly, on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of the independent claims or the claims which depend therefrom. DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 15-21. REVERSED 7