Ex Parte Whinnett et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2018

14058219 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/058,219 10/19/2013
116341 7590
Schiff Hardin LLP (Intel)
c/o Laura C. Brutman
Schiff Hardin LLP
666 Fifth A venue
New York, NY 10103
06/20/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nicholas William Whinnett
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.
45674-0026 1265
EXAMINER
VU, QUOC THAI NGOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2018 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):
Patents-NY @schiffhardin.com
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS WILLIAM WHINNETT and
FIONA CLARE ANGHARAD SOMERVILLE 1
Appeal2017-011708
Application 14/058,219
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-14, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-011708
Application 14/058,219
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' application relates to communication between user
equipment and a multi-mode base station arranged to operate as two or more
logical cells. Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter as
follows:
1. A method of controlling communication between a user
equipment and a multi-mode femtocell base station, the multi-
mode femtocell base station being arranged to operate as a
plurality of cells, the plurality of cells comprising a first cell
using a first radio access technology and a second cell using a
second radio access technology, the method comprising:
monitoring operating conditions of the first cell and the
second cell using a joint radio resource manager of the first and
second cells, the user equipment operating in the first cell;
based on the monitored operating conditions of the first
cell and the second cell, the joint radio resource manager
determining that making a handover of the user equipment to the
second cell would provide a performance improvement; and
in response to the joint radio resource manager
determining that making a handover of the user equipment to the
second cell would provide a performance improvement, making
a handover of the user equipment to the second cell to provide
the performance improvement.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Iwamura (US 2010/0210218 Al; Aug.
19, 2010) and Tinnakomsrisuphap (US 2011/0194530 Al; Aug. 11, 2011).
2
Appeal2017-011708
Application 14/058,219
Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwamura, Tinnakomsrisuphap, and Chin (US
2012/0315907 Al; Dec. 13, 2012).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwamura, Tinnakomsrisuphap, and Sakawa (US
2006/0029021 Al; Feb. 9, 2006).
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Iwamura, Tinnakomsrisuphap, and Zhu (US
2009/0207811 Al; Aug. 20, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the obviousness rejections
in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner regarding the obviousness rejections in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner's conclusions regarding the obviousness rejections. We
highlight the following additional points.
Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 14, Appellants contend
I wamura does not teach two cells that use different radio access
technologies, and Tinnakomsrisuphap does not teach a joint radio resource
manager. App. Br. 4--5. However, Appellants' arguments are misaligned
with the Examiner's rejection as stated in the Final Office Action. That is,
the Examiner relies on Iwamura, not Tinnakomsrisuphap, for teaching a
3
Appeal2017-011708
Application 14/058,219
joint radio resource manager for monitoring operating conditions on two
cells and determining whether to make a handover between the two cells.
Similarly, the Examiner relies on Tinnakomsrisuphap, not Iwamura, for
teaching a femtocell base station operating two cells using different radio
access technologies. Final Act. 3-5. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments
are unpersuasive because Appellants have not shown why each reference
fails to teach the claim features for which the Examiner has relied upon the
reference.
Appellants also contend the combination of I wamura and
Tinnakomsrisuphap does not suggest a joint radio resource manager for
"providing an efficient usage of a joint pool of resources" of the two radio
access technologies. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by this argument
for several reasons. First, none of independent claims 1, 12, and 14 recite
"providing an efficient usage of a joint pool of resources." Second, to the
extent Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to combine the references to make the claimed invention,
Appellants did not timely raise this argument in the Appeal Brief. See 37
C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2). Lastly, even if we were to entertain the combination
argument, Appellants have not specifically explained any shortcoming with
the Examiner's stated rationale for combining Tinnakomsrisuphap with
Iwamura-"to improve indoor coverage and increase data access speeds"
(Ans. 5).
We, therefore, are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 12, and 14, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13, not specifically
argued separately.
4
Appeal2017-011708
Application 14/058,219
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-14 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5