Ex Parte YamineDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201813980216 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/980,216 07/17/2013 Badawi Yamine 152435 7590 12/26/2018 Sage Patent Group/Zacco PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 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. 4015-8612 / P32501-US1 5291 EXAMINER DEMETER, HILINA K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/26/2018 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): zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com outsourcing@zacco.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BADA WI Y AMINE Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 Technology Center 2600 Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, AARON W. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge MOORE. Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge ENGLE. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 16, 18-20, and 22-30, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to "a method in a network node for handling neighbor cell relations in a cellular communications network." (Abstract.) Claim 16, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal: 16. A method, in a network node, for handling neighbor cell re- lations in a cellular communications network, the network node serving a user equipment in a first cell associated with a first cell site, the method comprising: receiving an indication from the user equipment that a second cell, associated with a second cell site, is a potential handover candidate cell for the user equipment based on radio condition criteria; adding the second cell to a neighbor cell relation list of the network node based on at least one of: the geographical location of the second cell site; the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to the second cell site. 1 Appellant identifies "Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)" as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.) 2 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 Marsan Magnuson et al. Jeong et al. THE REFERENCES US 6,188,904 B 1 US 6,285,874 Bl US 8,811,990 B2 THE REJECTIONS Feb. 13, 2001 Sept. 4, 2001 Aug. 19, 2014 1. Claims 16, 18-20, 22-23, and 25-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Magnuson and Marsan. (See Final Act. 3-10.) 2. Claims 24 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Magnuson, Marsan, and Jeong. (See Final Act. 10-11.) ANALYSIS Appellant's Invention The Specification explains that it was known in L TE networks for a node to maintain a list of potential handover candidates, and to obtain the candidates from handsets taking measurements of neighbor cells. (See Spec. 1:8-2: 11, 3:5-27.) The Specification further explains, however, that in such systems a base station that is identified as a potential candidate may be broadcasting its coverage far beyond its planned area, and that problems may arise if such a cell is added to the list of candidate target cells. (See id. at 3:28-33.) The inventors address that problem by applying an additional criterion for determining whether a cell should be added to neighbor list, where the additional criterion may be related to the geographical location of the potential candidate. (See id. at 4: 11-5:2.) 3 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 Exemplary claim 16 recites a method for handling neighbor cell relations in a cellular communications network in which a network node serves a user equipment in a first cell associated with a first cell site. The method includes (a) receiving an indication from the user equipment that a second cell, associated with a second cell site, is a potential handover candidate cell for the user equipment based on radio condition criteria, and (b) adding the second cell to a "neighbor cell relation list" of the network node, based on at least one of (i) the geographical location of the second cell site and (ii) the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to the second cell site. The Prior Art and the Rejection Magnusson "relates generally to the problem of determining the identity of a cell" and "more particularly to the problem of determining the true identity of a cell when only the transmission frequency and a non- unique identity code is known." (Magnusson, Abstract.) The method involves creating a "candidate list" that is "based on a function of various elements e.g. distance, transmission power, cell type, and antenna placement," ranking the cells in the candidate list, and, when a particular frequency/code combination is detected, consulting the candidate list for the highest ranking cell with the same frequency/code combination and identifying that as the signal source. (Id.) In an alternative embodiment, a "neighbor cell list" is used to create the candidate list and, if there are no matches on that list, "the neighbors of the cells on the candidate list are also added to the candidate list which is then checked for a match." (Id.) Marsan concerns "a method for improving the communication coverage in a multi-cell communication system ... which employs neighbor 4 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 cell lists." (Marsan, Abstract.) A cell site provides a communication unit (i.e., a mobile device) within its cell with communication and a neighbor cell list. (Id.) When the "fixed network equipment" detects that the communication unit has entered another cell and/or needs to hand-off its communication to another cell site but has been denied, the original cell site sends the communication unit the neighbor cell list related to the new cell. The communication unit can then use the new neighbor list to maintain its communication by handing-off to cells unknown before. (Id.) The Examiner found that "Magnuson et al. disclosed most of the subject matter [ of independent claim 16] except for specifically teaching wherein the at least one additional criterion is based on at least one of: the geographical location of the second cell site; the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to the second cell site." (Final Act. 5.) The Examiner further found Marsan to teach that missing subject matter, and that it would have been obvious to add the geographic location of Marsan to Magnuson's method, "in order to improve[e] communication coverage in multi-cell wireless communication systems." (Id. at 6 ( citing Marsan 1: 15- 17).) Obviousness Appellant argues the combination does not teach or suggest "a network node serving a user equipment in a first cell that adds a second cell to its neighbor cell relation list." (App. Br. 8.) We agree. Consistent with the claim language, the Specification and the cited art, we interpret "neighbor cell relation list" to be a list of handover candidate cells. (See Claim 16 (adding a second cell to the neighbor cell relation list upon "receiving an indication" that it is a "potential handover candidate 5 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 cell"); Spec. 1 :20-23 ("[E]ach eNodeB keeps a neighbor cell relation list of plausible handover candidates with connectivity information as well as a mapping between the PCI and a unique E-UTRAN cell global identifier, ECGI."); Marsan 2:46-47 ("The neighbor cell list informs the communication unit of other cells which are possible hand-off targets.").) Magnusson describes a "neighbor cell list" that is "associated with the current cell to determine which base stations receive the measurement order from the MSC." (Magnusson 2:21-23.) However, this neighbor cell list is "created and set manually by the system operator and remains fixed until the operator later manually modifies the list." (Id. 2:23-25.) There is no teaching or suggestion that Magnusson' s "neighbor cell list" is or might be augmented as a result of receiving "an indication from the user equipment that a second cell ... is a potential handover candidate cell ... based on radio condition criteria," as required by claim 16. Magnusson separately describes a "candidate list," which the Examiner finds to correspond to the claimed "neighbor cell relation list." (See Final Act. 5 (citing Magnusson 8:1--4); Ans. 3 (same).) The "candidate list" is described in connection with the embodiment of Figure 7, which "may be used alone or in combination with the previous embodiments." (Magnusson 7:51-53.) It is explained as follows: The first step of the present embodiment is performed when a particular frequency/code combination is detected at a base sta- tion 710. The system consults the neighbor cell list for this base station and adds the cells on this neighbor cell list to a candidate list 720. The next step is to check this candidate list, which now consists of those cells on the neighbor cell list, for a matching combination to the detected frequency/code combination 730. If no match is found, the next step is to modify the candidate list 750. Each cell in the current candidate list is consulted one 6 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 by one. Each neighbor cell list for each of these cells is then retrieved and the cells in these neighbor cell lists are added to the candidate list. In this way the "neighbors of the neighbors" are added to the candidate list. After these "neighbors of the neighbors" are added to the list the system returns to the previous step 720 to again check this new modified candidate list for a matching combination to the detected frequency/code combination 730. If there is a match, this is checked to see if there is only one single matching combi- nation 7 40. If only one matching combination is found, it is con- cluded that that cell was the origin of the signal 7 60. If more than one match is found, the method fails to identify the origin of the signal, unless some additional ( e.g. geographic) information is also used 770. In this case you can resort to the previous embodiment shown in FIG. 3 and choose the closest of the matching cells. (Magnusson 7:51-8:16.) As described, the Figure 7 embodiment is a technique for identifying a particular frequency/code combination. Neighbors of the first cell are added to the candidate list and checked for a frequency/code match and, if no match is found, more neighbors are added to the candidate list to be checked for a match. Magnusson' s "candidate list" is, therefore, only a list of cells that might be a frequency/code match. It is not, despite its name, a list of possible handover candidate cells. And even if one is a frequency/code match, Magnusson does not teach adding that cell to a "neighbor cell list." We thus find that the combination, as formulated by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest a node adding a cell to its neighbor cell relation list following receipt of an indication from user equipment that the cell is a potential handover candidate. Claim 16 also requires "adding the second cell to a neighbor cell relation list of the network node based on at least one of: the geographical 7 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 location of the second cell site; the geographical location of other cell sites in relation to the second cell site." The Examiner relies on Marsan for the geographical location of a cell site. (See Final Act. 5 ( citing Marsan 6:40- 48); January 1, 2016 Advisory Action 2 (same); Ans. 4 (same).) A review of the cited passage of Marsan, however, reveals that it describes determining the location of a "communication unit," i.e., a handset or UE, "to a greater specificity than that of a cell site service coverage area." We fail to see how this might teach or suggest using the geographical location of a candidate cell in determining whether or not to add it to a neighbor cell relation list. For each of these two reasons, we do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claim 16 or of claims 18-20 and 22-30, all of which also include the subject language. Because these issues are dispositive, we do not reach Appellant's other arguments. DECISION The rejections of claims 16, 18-20, and 22-30 are reversed. REVERSED 8 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BADA WI Y AMINE Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 Technology Center 2600 Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, AARON W. MOORE, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring. CONCURRING OPINION Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 I concur in reversing based solely on the majority's discussion of Marsan, but I respectfully disagree with respect to Magnusson. Appellant does not dispute that Magnusson teaches "receiving an indication from the user equipment that a second cell ... is a potential handover candidate cell," as recited in claim 16. See App. Br. 3-13; Final Act. 3--4. Instead, Appellant argues Magnusson fails to teach "adding the second cell to a neighbor cell relation list." App. Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant argues that although "Magnusson teaches to modify the candidate list,"2 it teaches "not to modify the neighbor cell list." Reply Br. 2. I agree with the Examiner that this fails to address the Examiner's findings. Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on cells "added to the candidate list," not the neighbor cell list. Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added). Appellant only argues that Magnusson's candidate list is different than Magnusson 's neighbor cell list, but never explains what the claimed "neighbor cell relation list" requires that is not in the candidate list. Appellant seems to imply that Magnusson's neighbor cell list is a "neighbor cell relation list," but this fails to address whether Magnusson's candidate list also falls within the scope of a "neighbor cell relation list." The candidate list contains the same data as the neighbor cell list and merely adds further data ( e.g., distances). Magnusson 6:34--38 ("The candidate list is similar to a conventional neighbor cell list ... but also includes the geographical 2 One example is a mobile phone considering a handoff to a second cell that is either a neighbor or a neighbor-of-neighbors. See Magnusson 6:21-31, 2:64--67, 3: 17-20; Ans. 3. In the Figure 7 embodiment, the candidate list first "adds" neighbors, then if no match is found, the neighbors-of-neighbors are "added to the candidate list." Magnusson 7:58-8:4; Ans. 3. 2 Appeal2017-002693 Application 13/980,216 distances"), 7:60-62 (creating the candidate list with the same cells as the neighbor cell list). Appellant fails to explain why adding further data (e.g., distances) would make such a list no longer "a neighbor cell relation list" as claimed. App. Br. 5. "If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue ... the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential). The majority attempts to remedy Appellant's lack of briefing by sua sponte construing "a neighbor cell relation list" as "a list of handover candidate cells" and asserting Magnusson's candidate list is "only a list of cells that might be a frequency/code match." But Magnusson's candidate list still meets this broad construction. As Appellant explains, one purpose of the candidate list is to provide the identity of "the best cellfor handover." App. Br. 4 ( emphasis added); Magnusson 6:21-31 ("a frequency/code combination is 'detected' ... when a handover is performed" and "the candidate list for that particular cell is checked ... for a matching frequency/ code combination"). Thus, a handover to that cell only occurs if that cell is on the candidate list, which means the candidate list is a list of cells that are handover candidates. In fact, the candidate list starts out as a list of the same cells as the neighbor cell list. Magnusson 7:60-62. It is unclear what further unstated limitations the majority is requiring for this term-and it may well be that a more complete construction really should exclude Magnusson' s candidate list-but absent Appellant's briefs identifying a single structural or functional difference between a "candidate list" and the claimed "neighbor cell relation list," the record currently before us fails to show any error in the Examiner's findings on Magnusson's candidate list. 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation