Ex Parte XU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

13724264 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/724,264 12/21/2012
68103 7590 08/02/2018
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
LixiangXU
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.
0201-0612 8794
EXAMINER
ELNOUBI, SAID M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LIXIANG XU and HONG WANG
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 19, 20, 23-25, and 28, which constitute
all claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 1-18, 21, 22, 26, and 27 were
canceled previously.
We affirm.
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is generally directed to "a method for detecting
a cause for a Radio Link Failure (RLF) or handover failure." Spec. Abstract.
Claims 19 and 24 are independent claims. Claim 19 is reproduced below:
19. A method for detecting a connection failure by a base
station in a wireless communication system, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a message including a radio link failure (RLF)
report from another base station which receives the RLF report
from a user equipment (UE) if the connection failure occurs at
the UE, the base station having served the UE before the
connection failure;
determining that a cause for the connection failure is a too
early inter-radio access technology (RAT) handover, if the UE
has been handed over between different RATs before the
connection failure and a cell in which the UE attempted to
reestablish a radio resource control (RRC) connection after the
connection failure is a universal terrestrial radio access network
(UTRAN) cell, based on the received message; and
determining that the cause for the connection failure is a
too late inter-RAT handover, if the UE has not been handed over
before the connection failure, and the cell in which the UE
attempted to re-establish the RRC connection after the
connection failure is the UTRAN cell, based on the received
message,
wherein the RLF report includes information on a tracking
area where the base station that served the UE before the
connection failure is located, and identification information of
the UTRAN cell.
REJECTION
Claims 19, 20, 23-25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of 3GPP TS 36.300 VJ0.5.0: Technical Specification (2009)
2
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
("3GPP"), 1 Ahmad Awada et al., Self-Optimization Algorithm for Inter-
RAT Configuration Parameters, IEEE 8TH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AACHEN 311-16 (2011) ("Awada"),
and Catovic (US 2010/0173626 Al; July 8, 2010). Final Act. 2-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c).
CLAIMS 19, 20, AND 23
To resolve the question of patentability under§ I03(a), we begin by
construing claim 19. During examination, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing
claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because
the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." Id.
1 The Examiner indicates that the pending rejection is based on version
10.5.0 of this technical specification. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. We note that
certain cited sections do not exist and other cited sections are not located at
the identified page numbers. See, e.g., Ans. 2 ( citing 3GPP § 4.5.2.1, not
found in 3GPP), 5 (citing 3GPP §§ 15.9.3.2, 15.10.2 on pages 117 and 118,
respectively whereas these sections on are pages 114--115 in 3GPP).
Nevertheless, the relevant teachings can be found and Appellants have not
shown that they were unable to identify the relevant cited teachings.
Accordingly, we find this error harmless with respect to the appealed matters
before us.
3
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
Claim 19 recites, in pertinent part, "receiving a message including a
radio link failure (RLF) report from another base station which receives the
RLF from a user equipment (UE) if the connection failure occurs at the UE"
and further defines the RLF report, reciting that "the RLF report includes
information on a tracking area where the base station that served the UE
before the connection failure is located." Accordingly, claim 19' s receiving
step occurs only if the connection failure occurs at the UE. Notably, claim
19 does not recite receiving a message ( or performing any other step) when
the connection failure occurs anywhere other than at the UE.
The receiving step, therefore, is similar to the conditional limitations
discussed in Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792
(PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that in a method claim, a step
reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition
precedent is not met). See also MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)
( citing Schulhauser ). As noted above, claim 19 does not recite receiving a
message if the connection failure does not occur at the UE. That is, when
the condition precedent for the receiving step is not met, claim 19 does not
perform the receiving step.
Because there are scenarios where the condition precedent is not met
(and, therefore, claim 19 does not perform the receiving step), it is not
necessary to demonstrate the prior art teaches the receiving step.
Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792 at *3--4. Furthermore, because the prior art
need not teach or suggest the receiving step, the Examiner need not
demonstrate the prior art teaches the limitation further defining the RLF
4
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
report included in the message, which is not received when the connection
failure does not occur at the UE.
Turning to the rejection, Appellants do not dispute that the cited prior
art teaches the remaining limitations in claim 19. 2 See App. Br. 4--7. Given
the Examiner's undisputed findings with respect to the additional
limitations, we see no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' contention that the cited
prior art does not teach the particularly recited information included in a
message that is only conditionally received and, therefore, need not be
taught by the prior art.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 19, or claims 20 and 23, not argued separately with
particularity. For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 19,
20, and 23.
CLAIMS 19, 20, 23-25, AND 28
Appellants argue claims 19, 20, 23-25, and 28 as a group. App.
Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2-5. We select claim 24 as representative of the group.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). The Examiner finds the combination of
3GPP, Awada, and Catovic teaches or suggests every limitation recited in
claim 24. Final Act. 7-11. Specifically, the Examiner finds 3GPP teaches
the recited base station (including the communication interface and
controller) and the recited receiving a message step (including that the
message includes an RLF report, which further includes identification
2 We note that the determining steps also appear to recite conditional
limitations. However, because these limitations are not contested, we leave
construction of these limitations to the Examiner, should these claims
undergo further prosecution.
5
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
information of the UTRAN cell to which the UE attempts to reconnect),
Awada teaches the two recited determining steps, Catovic teaches "the RLF
report includes information on a tracking area where the base station that
served the UE before the connection failure is located," and the Examiner
provides a rationale for combining the cited teachings. Id. (citing 3GPP 18,
172; Awada 314; Catovic ,r 51 ). Appellants argue only that the combination
of references fails to teach or suggest "the RLF report includes information
on a tracking area where the base station that served the UE before
connection failure is located," App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2--4, and that Catovic
discloses sending the RLF report between access points, whereas the claim
recites that the base station receives the RLF report (in a message) from the
UE, App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants assert Catovic discloses that a "base station detects
geographical location on which the RLF occurred," whereas the claim
requires "an RLF report that is transmitted from a [UE] to a base station
includes geographical location information of the base station." App. Br. 4;
Reply Br. 2-3. More specifically, Appellants acknowledge that Catovic
discloses "the RLF report may include a geographical location of the RLF
report," but contend that is not what is claimed because Catovic does not
indicate "that the geographical location of RLF report corresponds to the
geographical information of the base station that served the UE before the
RLF report." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue the
Specification describes that "a Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) (i.e.,
information on a tracking area, recited in claim 19) in which the cell is
located can also be included," which is different from Catovic's disclosed
"geographical location." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3--4.
6
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
The Examiner finds Catovic' s paragraph 51 teaches an RLF report
that includes the recited location information, namely "information on a
tracking area where the base station that served the UE before the
connection failure is located." Final Act. 10; Ans. 2-5. The Examiner
further explains that Catovic' s "geographical location of [the] first cell
where the RLF occurred" teaches or suggests the recited "information on a
tracking area where the base station that served the UE before the
connection failure is located." Ans. 3. The Examiner further notes that the
TAI disclosed in Appellants' Specification is not recited in the claims, but
rather claim 24 "merely recites 'information on a tracking area' which is
different from 'TAI."' Id. at 4 (emphases omitted); see id. at 4--5.
We agree with the Examiner. As the Examiner notes, the claim
broadly recites that the RLF report includes "information on a tracking area
where the base station ... is located." Although the TAI may be one
example of information encompassed by the claim, we see nothing in the
claim that would limit the "information on a tracking area" to only the TAI.
Furthermore, as noted above, Appellants acknowledge Catovic discloses that
an "RLF report may include a geographical location of the RLF." App.
Br. 5; see Catovic ,r 51 ("The RLF report message may include various types
of information ... includ[ing] at least one of: ... an identifier of the cell
and/or an identifier of the access point at which the RLF occurred [or] a
geographical location of the RLF."). We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions that Catovic' s disclosure of an RLF
report including the cell or access point ID and/or the geographical location
of where the radio link failure occurred teaches or suggests the broadly
7
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
recited "information on a tracking area where the base station that served the
UE before the connection failure is located."
Appellants' argument that Catovic discloses sending the RLF report
between access points is unpersuasive. The Examiner finds 3GPP teaches a
controller that "receive[ s] a message including an [RLF] report from another
base station which receives the RLF report from a" UE. Final Act. 7-8
( citing 3GPP 172); Ans. 5---6. The Examiner further finds it is the
combination of 3GPP and Catovic that teaches a base station receiving an
RLF report that includes the recited location information from a UE, and
responds that Appellants' argument attacks the references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination. Final Act. 10-11 (citing Catovic
,r 51); Ans. 5-6 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Appellants do not persuasively
demonstrate that the combination of 3GPP and Catovic fails to teach sending
the recited RLF report from a UE to a base station. Accordingly, we agree
with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to this
limitation.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 24 and claim 19, which recites similar limitations to those in
claim 24, as obvious in view of the combined teachings of 3GPP, Awada,
and Catovic. Appellants do not argue dependent claims 20, 23, 25, and 28
separately with particularity. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejection claims 19, 20, 23-25, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Appeal 2017-011389
Application 13/724,264
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 19, 20, 23-25, and
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
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).
AFFIRMED
9