Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13767648 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/767,648 02/14/2013 Yan Zhou 130382US02 3572
15055 7590 08/02/2017
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
NOWLIN, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 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):
qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YAN ZHOU, GEORGE CHERIAN, and
HEMANTH SAMPATH
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—24, and 27—35 the only claims pending in
this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.3
CLAIMED INVENTION
Wireless communication networks use access points (e.g., base
stations) to support communication with mobile access terminals (e.g.,
cellular telephones). (Spec. 13.) Access points are provided at spaced
locations to provide wireless coverage over a geographic area.
As an access terminal moves in the service area, the access point
providing the best signal may change, for example, because the access
terminal is farther away or closer to certain access points, or because of the
presence of obstructions, like buildings or trees, that impact the wireless
signal. In addition, other phenomena affecting wireless signals, such as
fading and interference, may necessitate changing the access point serving
the access terminal. This operation is termed a “handover.”
In a handover operation, an access terminal may encounter various
issues. (Spec. 5—8.) For example, if the access terminal is located at the
boundary served by two access points, then service may alternate too
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Appellants indicate claims 3, 4, 14, 15, 25, and 26 have been canceled.
(See Claims App’x.)
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Feb. 14, 2013, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Mar. 25, 2015, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed Sept. 17, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Mar. 23, 2016, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 9, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
frequently between the access points, a condition termed frequent handover
(FHO). (Spec. | 5.) As another example, the wireless link with the serving
access point may fail before the handover is completed, a condition termed
too-late handover (TLHO). (Spec. 17) In another case, the access terminal
may be changed before the link with the target access point is established, a
condition referred to as too-early handover (TEHO). (Id.)
Parameters controlling when handover occurs may be set to avoid
handover issues. (Spec. 8, 16.) Conventionally, according to Appellants,
this was performed on the network side of the wireless network, either by
the core network or the access points. (Id.) In the claimed invention,
however, it is the access terminal that determines when handover is
necessary. (Id.)
Specifically, the access terminal stores adapted handover parameters
for pairs of access points so that the access terminal can use them in a
subsequent handover operation involving the same pair of access points,
rather than to use default parameters. (Spec. 116.) The claimed invention
stores the adapted handover parameters based on how frequently they are
adapted. (Spec. 89—93.) For example, if a handover parameter is adapted
frequently, then the access terminal stores the adapted handover parameter
for later use. Conversely, if the access terminal adapts a handover parameter
infrequently, then it does not store the handover parameter. (Id.) This
allows the access terminal to more readily determine the parameter to use in
making a handover decision by avoiding repetitive adaptation of the
parameter. (Spec. 116.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
3
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
1. An apparatus for handover parameter adaptation, comprising:
a memory component configured to store at least one
adapted handover parameter, wherein the at least one adapted
handover parameter is designated for mitigating a handover issue
associated with handover of the apparatus between a designated
pair of access points; and
a processing system configured to:
determine a frequency of occurrence of adaptation
of the at least one handover parameter associated with
handover of the apparatus between the designated pair of
access points;
trigger the storing of the at least one adapted
handover parameter based on the determined frequency of
occurrence of the adaptation of the at least one handover
parameter; and
determine whether to handover the apparatus from
a first one of the designated pair of access points to a
second one of the designated pair of access points, wherein
the determination is based on the stored at least one
adapted handover parameter.
(App. Br. 23 — Claims App’x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 11, 12, 15—18, 21—24, 27—29, and 32—35 stand
provisionally rejected for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting
based on co-pending U.S. Application No. 13/767,637, filed Feb. 14, 2013,
Yamamoto (US 2012/0176892 Al, published July 12, 2012), and Catovic
(US 2010/0173626 Al, published July 8, 2010). (Final Act. 7-36.)
Claims 8, 9, 19, 20, 30, and 31 stand provisionally rejected for non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting based on co-pending U.S.
Application No. 13/767,637, filed Feb. 14, 2013, Catovic (US
4
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
2010/0173626 Al, published July 8, 2010), and Han (US 2005/0255847 Al,
published Nov. 17, 2005). (Final Act. 37-49.)
Claims 1, 2, 5—7, 10-13, 16—18, 21—24, 27—29, 32—354 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Yamamoto and Catovic. (Final Act. 49—
73.)
Claims 8, 9, 19, 20, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Yamamoto, Catovic, and Han. (Final Act. 73—85.)
ANALYSIS
I. Prior Art Rejections
Independent Claims 1, 12, 23, 34, 35
Appellants’ arguments pertain to the limitation in claim 1 reciting to
“determine a frequency of occurrence of adaptation of the at least one
handover parameter,” and similar limitations in claims 12, 23, 34, and 35.
(App. Br. 13, 18—20.) In particular, Appellants argue Yamamoto determines
the rate of handover failures and adapts a parameter to change the handover
rate. (App. Br. 13—14 citing Yamamoto 32—34.) In contrast, according to
Appellants, the claimed invention determines a frequency of occurrence of
adaptation of the parameter and uses the determined frequency to trigger
storage of the parameter for making handover decisions involving a
particular pair of access points. (Id.)
We agree with Appellants’ argument. Determining a frequency of
occurrence of adaptation of a handover parameter and triggering its storage
based on the determined frequency, as claimed, is not the same thing as
4 The rejected claims are not ah correctly identified at page 49 of the Final
Office Action. However, the rejected claims are set forth in the body of the
rejection, so we view this error as harmless.
5
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
determining the rate of handover failures and adapting a handover parameter
accordingly, as taught by Yamamoto.
The Examiner’s error here is one of interpretation of the claimed
phrase. Specifically, the Examiner interprets the claimed phrase to mean a
“frequency of occurrence and/or rate relating to or caused by the adaptation
of handover parameter(s).” (Ans. 6.) The Examiner bases this interpretation
on the definition for “of’ as “(1) used to indicate derivation, origin, or
source, (2) used to indicate cause, motive, occasion, or reason, and (3) used
to indicate qualities or attributes.” {Id. citing definition for “of’ from
Dictonary.com, http://dictonary.reference.com/browse/of.) The Examiner’s
interpretation is also based on synonyms for the term “of’ including “(1)
about, (2) from, (3) like, (4) regarding, and (5) concerning.” {Id. citing
Thesaurus.com, www.thesaurus.com/browse/of?s=t.)
While it is true that “the PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation during examination,” at the same time, this
interpretation must be “consistent with the specification.” In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants cite to
their Specification to elucidate the meaning of the claimed phrase. (App. Br.
13—14 citing Spec. 1 89). For convenience, the relevant part of the
Specification is set forth below:
As discussed herein, action on the part of the access terminal
may be triggered upon detecting a single occurrence of a
handover parameter adaptation or upon detecting several
occurrences of handover parameter adaptation. As an example
of the latter case, in some implementations, the access terminal
determines a frequency of occurrence of the adaptation of the at
least one handover parameter. The detection of an occurrence of
handover parameter adaptation may involve, for example, a
function (e.g., a process executed by a processing system) that
6
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
performs the handover parameter adaptation providing an
indication of the adaptation to another function that controls the
storing of adapted handover parameters.
(Spec. 1 89.) Thus, the Specification is reasonably clear that the claimed
phrase is referring to the frequency of adaptations of the handover
parameter, as Appellants contend, and not more generally to the frequency
of any occurrence that is related to or caused by adaptation of a handover
parameter, as the Examiner finds.
Also, we note that one definition of “occurrence” is “1. Something
that occurs; a happening; event.” Collins English Dictionary, 12th Edition
2014 © HarperCollins Publishers. In the claimed phrase, the only candidate
for that “something” in the definition of “occurrence” is the adaptation of the
handover parameter. The Examiner’s interpretation leaves the “occurrence”
unconnected to “something” recited in the claim aside from its being
somehow “related to or caused by” adaptation of a handover parameter. We
decline to adopt the Examiner’s overly broad interpretation as one that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to the claimed phrase.
Thus, we find the Examiner’s interpretation unreasonably broad in
light of the Specification and the plain meaning of the term “occurrence.”
Remaining Claims and Arguments
The remaining claims are dependent from claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and
35, and thus include all of their limitations. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of these dependent claims for the reasons stated for independent
claims 1, 12, 23, 34, and 35.
Because we agree with the noted argument advanced by Appellants,
which we find to be dispositive for all pending claims, we do not reach the
merits of Appellants’ remaining arguments.
7
Appeal 2016-005880
Application 13/767,648
II. Provisional Double-Patenting Rejections
All pending claims stand provisionally rejected for non-statutory
double patenting based on co-pending U.S. Application No. 13/767,637,
filed Feb. 14, 2013, and various combinations of Yamamoto, Cato vie, and
Han. Given the provisional nature of these rejections, we exercise our
discretion not to address them in this appeal.5 Similarly, in Ex parte
Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI2010) (precedential), the Board
declined to reach a double patenting rejection after reversing a rejection
based on prior art.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—24, and 27—35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We do not reach the provisional rejections of claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—
24, and 27—35 for obviousness-type double patenting.
REVERSED
5 However, we advise the Examiner to consider whether this rejection should
be made non-provisional in view of further prosecution of the co-pending
application.
8