Ex Parte Venkatachalam

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2014

11907813 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MUTHAIAH VENKATACHALAM
____________

Appeal 2012-007389
Application 11/907,813
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1–25, all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

The present invention relates generally to executing a network re-
entry process for a second wireless device using retrieved network resource
information locally stored in a first wireless device. See Abstract.

Appeal 2012-007389
Application 11/907,813

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a first wireless device a request from a
second wireless device to enter an idle mode of operation;
receiving at the first wireless device network resource
information from one or more backend network components,
the network resource information including information for
network re-entry of the second wireless device upon exiting the
idle mode of operation;
storing said network resource information in a local
memory of said first wireless device; and
if a request from the second wireless device to exit the
idle mode of operation is received at the first wireless device
within a predefined resource holding time period, retrieving the
network resource information from the local memory and
executing a network re-entry process for network re-entry of the
second wireless device using the retrieved network resource
information.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cho (US 2008/0153491 A1, June 26, 2008).

We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that Cho teaches or suggests receiving at the first wireless device
network resource information from one or more backend network
components, as set forth in claim 1.
As identified by Appellant, Cho fails to disclose “receiving at a first
wireless device a request from a second wireless device to enter an idle
Appeal 2012-007389
Application 11/907,813

3
mode of operation and receiving at the first wireless device network resource
information from one or more backend network components” (App. Br. 11–
12. Here, Appellant emphasizes that Cho fails to disclose “receiving
resource information [at the first network] from one or more backend
network components” (App. Br. 12) (emphasis omitted).
For example, Cho discloses:
[A] method of communicating data for entering idle-mode
includes the MSS transmitting a request by a mobile subscriber
station (MSS) to a network entity via a de-registration request
message requesting the network entity to retain a preferred
session information, and receiving a selected session
information via a de-registration command response from the
network entity.

(¶ 41; see also ¶¶ 61–64 and Fig. 4). In other words, Cho discloses that the
MSS transmits a request message, i.e., a request to enter idle mode, and
session information, i.e., information related to network re-entry services, to
the network entity. The network entity selects session information which it
decides to retain and then notifies the MSS via a response message.
However, the Examiner has not shown where Cho’s network entity receives
resource information for network re-entry from a backend network
component. Even if we accept the Examiner’s finding that Cho’s network
entities BS2 and BS3 suggests backend network components, as proffered
by the Examiner (see Ans. 28), the Examiner still has not shown any
network resource information being transmitted therefrom to BS1, i.e., a first
wireless device (see Fig. 4). Instead, network resource information is only
illustrated as being received from BS1 and/or MSS, e.g., the first and second
wireless devices.
Appeal 2012-007389
Application 11/907,813

4
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Cho teaches or
suggest receiving at the first wireless device (BS1) network resource
information from one or more backend network component (BS2, BS3), as
recited in each of the independent claims. Since we agree with at least one
of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–25.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–25 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc