Ex Parte Walley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2018

14295282 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/295,282 06/03/2014
49579 7590 04/27/2018
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
John Walley
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.
3875.8310001 1077
EXAMINER
HONG, DUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2018 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):
e-office@stemekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN WALLEY, W AEL DIAB, KAMLESH RA TH,
RAYMOND HAYES, and MURAT MESE
Appeal 2017-011473
Application 14/295,282
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
utilizing various caching techniques within a cross radio access technology
(RAT) system to improve communication performance and handoffs. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-011473
Application 14/295,282
1. A User Equipment (UE), comprising:
an antenna configured to receive data from a first access point;
a cache that stores the data; and
a controller configured to predict if the UE will undergo a connection
handoff from the first access point to a second access point, and to request,
responsive to predicting that the UE will undergo the connection handoff, a
burst of data from the first access point to supplement the data in the cache
in preparation for the connection handoff,
wherein the antenna is further configured to transmit a request for the
burst of data to the first access point, and to receive the burst of data from
the first access point in response to transmitting the request.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2009/0016299Al, published
Jan. 15, 2009).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Watanabe and Vialen (US 6,577,868 Bl, issued Jun. 10,
2003).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Watanabe and Morgan (US 2014/0256326 Al, published
Sep. 11, 2017).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Watanabe and Alberi-Morel (US 2008/0085711 Al, published Apr. 10,
2008).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Watanabe, Alberi-Morel, and Cai (US 2010/0202322 Al, published Aug.
12, 2010).
2
Appeal 2017-011473
Application 14/295,282
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Watanabe and Rao (US 2014/0199980 Al, published Jul.
17,2014).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Watanabe and Harris (US 2011/0096754 Al, published Apr. 28, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Watanabe
disclose "to request, responsive to predicting that the UE will undergo the
connection handoff, a burst of data from the first access point to supplement
the data in the cache in preparation for the connection handoff," as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1 See App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
Initially, the Examiner cites Watanabe's Figures 3, 5, and 6, and
paragraphs 39-49, 66, and 76-85 for teaching the italicized limitation. See
Final Act. 6. In responses to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner cites
Watanabe's Figures 2, 3, 9, and 11, and paragraphs 40, 41, 65, 66, 104, and
117. See Ans. 10-11. The Examiner maps the claimed "to request ... a
burst of data from the first access point to supplement the data in the cache
in preparation for the connection handoff' to Watanabe's CQI [Channel
Quality Index] message. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 11.
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2017-011473
Application 14/295,282
We have reviewed the cited Watanabe portions, and they do not
disclose "to request, responsive to predicting that the UE will undergo the
connection handoff, a burst of data from the first access point to supplement
the data in the cache in preparation for the connection handoff," as required
by claim 1 (emphasis added) under the Examiner's mapping. In particular,
the Examiner has not shown the CQI message is "responsive to predicting
that the UE will undergo the connection handoff," as recited in claim 1. To
the contrary and consistent with the knowledge of one skilled in the art,
Watanabe teaches "predicting that the UE will undergo the connection
handoff' is based on the information of the CQI message. See Watanabe
i-f 14 7 ("The control unit 91 checks the circumstances for possibility of hand-
over occurrence according to the information of the CQI 24 obtained from
the AT.") (emphasis added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 10 recites a claim limitation that is substantively
similar to the italicized limitation of claim 1. See claim 10. Therefore, for
similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
10.
We also reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
corresponding dependent claims 3, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 1 7.
4
Appeal 2017-011473
Application 14/295,282
Obviousness
Independent claim 7 recites a claim limitation that is the same as the
italicized limitation of claim 1. See claim 7. The Examiner cites an
additional reference for the obviousness rejection of claim 7. See Final Act.
14. The Examiner relies on Watanabe in the same manner discussed above
in the context of claim 1, and does not rely on the additional reference in any
manner that remedies the deficiencies of Watanabe discussed above. See
Final Act. 14. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7.
The Examiner cites additional references for the obviousness rejection
of dependent claims 2, 4---6, 8, 12, 14, and 16, which depend on independent
claims 1 and 10. The Examiner relies on Watanabe in the same manner
discussed above in the context of claim 1, and does not rely on the additional
references in any manner that remedies the underlying anticipation rejection
of independent claims 1 and 10. See Final Act. 10-15.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2, 4--6, 8, 12, 14, and 16.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17.
REVERSED
5