Ex Parte Verona et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2015

12198352 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/198,352
124192
GOOGLE
7590
FILING DATE
08/26/2008
12/16/2015
C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Itzhak Verona
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.
GP-101285-00-US 3922
EXAMINER
PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2015 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):
googleusinternal@faegrebd.com
inteas@faegrebd.com
michelle.davis@faegrebd.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ITZHAK VERONA, MATTHEW D. FITZPATRICK, and
STEVEL. SHEYA
Appeal2014-000678
Application 12/198,352
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-23
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to "making handover decisions in a
heterogeneous network." Specification [0001].
Appeal2014-000678
Application 12/198,352
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for handover of a mobile station from a serving system to a
target system, wherein a network of the serving system uses a different
Radio Access Technology than a network of the target system, the method
compnsmg:
measuring a Link Quality (LQ) of the target system to produce a Link
Quality measurement;
adjusting a nominal handoff threshold based on the Link Quality
measurement of the target system to produce an adjusted handoff threshold;
and
initiating handoff of the mobile station from the serving system to the target
system when a signal strength of the serving system goes below the adjusted
handoff threshold.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-17 and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shi (US Patent Number 6,507,740 B2; issued Jan.
14, 2003) and Gwon (US Patent Application Publication Number
2003/0119508 Al; published June 26, 2003). Final Rejection 2-9.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 13, 2012), the Reply Brief (filed Oct.
10, 2013), the Answer (mailed Aug.15, 2013), and the Final Rejection
(mailed Oct. 13, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
2
Appeal2014-000678
Application 12/198,352
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief, and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue that:
Because Shi and Gwon both use a measurement of the serving
system (and do not use a measurement of the target system) to
set a handoff threshold, neither Shi nor Gwon shows or
suggests 'adjusting a nominal handoff threshold based on the
Link Quality measurement of the target system' as recited in
claim 1.
Appeal Brief 5.
The Examiner finds Shi discloses:
measuring a Link Quality of the target system to produce a Link
Quality measurement (column 3, lines 34--38); adjusting a
nominal handoff threshold based on the Link Quality
measurement of the target system to produce an adjusted
handoff threshold (adjusting the dynamic threshold, column 3,
lines 34--38, 45--49)."
Final Rejection 3.
We agree with the Examiner's findings. Shi discloses, "[t]he
apparatus includes means for scanning the radio environment at the mobile
unit to evaluate signal strength and signal quality conditions of alternative
channels within the mobile unit's cell or in neighboring cells." Shi, column
3, lines 45--49. Therefore, Shi discloses that signal quality is evaluated
within the mobile unit's cell (serving system) or in neighboring cells (target
system). Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 21, as well as claims 3---6, 19, 20, 22 and 23 that
stand or fall with claim 1 and/ or claim 21. See Appeal Brief 6-7.
3
Appeal2014-000678
Application 12/198,352
Appellants argue that Shi does not disclose "'determining a ratio of
energy per chip to interference power spectral density (Ee/Io) of the target
system' as recited in claim 2." Appeal Brief 6. We do not find Appellants'
argument persuasive because the Ee/Io ratio or measurement is well known
in the art and is employed to evaluate the condition of energy over inference
when evaluating handover scenarios. See Final Rejection 4--5 (citing Shi,
column 2, lines 38--49). We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 2, as well as claims 7-9 that stand or fall with claim 2. See Appeal
Brief 6.
Appellants argue, "Shi and Gwon do not show or suggest 'expanding
a geographic coverage area of the serving system when the Link Quality
measurement of the target system is below a predetermined Link Quality
threshold' as recited in claim 10" because "[a]s explained in Shi, the link
quality threshold (LQhH) of Shi is decreased to encourage handoff' and
therefore "the geographic coverage area of the serving system is decreased
when the LQI of the serving system is below a predetermined LQI
threshold." Appeal Brief 6. The Examiner finds Shi discloses the disputed
claim 10 limitation. See Final Rejection 6 (citing Shi column 7, lines 3-10).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and do not find Appellants'
arguments persuasive because Shi discloses upon the degrading of the Link
Quality of the target station, the handoff threshold reduces "to facilitate the
mobile's unit access to alternative base stations in the system coverage
area." See Final Rejection (citing Shi column 7, lines 3-10). We sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 10, as well as, claims 12-17
that stand or fall with claim 10. See Appeal Brief 6.
Appellants argue that Shi decreases the nominal handoff threshold
based on a link quantity of the serving system and therefore does not
4
Appeal2014-000678
Application 12/198,352
disclose "'decreasing the nominal handoff threshold for the serving system
based on of the Link Quality measurement of the target system' as recited in
claim 11." Appeal Brief 6-7. We do not find Appellants' arguments
persuasive because Shi discloses, "When the link quality of the channel
tends to degrade, the handoffthreshold will be reduced to facilitate the
mobile unit's access to alternative base stations in the system coverage area,
thereby improving link quality." Shi, column 7, lines 3---6. We sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1-17 and 19-23 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
Jagr
5