Nicolas Drevon

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2020

10509852 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2020)

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.
10/509,852 09/30/2004 Nicolas Drevon 104606-US-NP 4310
59978 7590 01/15/2020
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (NOKIA)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
EXAMINER
CAI, WAYNE HUU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
patent@csglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAS DREVON
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852
Technology Center 2600

Before J. JOHN LEE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 8–11, 13, 14 and 16–24. Claims 2–7,
12, and 15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852

2
We AFFIRM.2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, 13, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for controlling access rights in a cellular
mobile radio system, said method comprising:
transmitting access rights control related information
from a core network to a radio network controller of said
cellular mobile radio system, wherein said access rights control
related information includes particular information not
transmitted in messages related to user equipment or user
equipment communication, but transmitted during a procedure
for information transfer from said core network to said radio
network controller, wherein said procedure for information
transfer is performed at least upon change of said particular
information in said core network.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 8–11, 13, 14, and 16–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Appellant Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”) and Willars.3 Final Act. 6–15.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).

2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed May 24, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed September 27, 2018 (“Reply
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 31, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Final Office
Action mailed July 31, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
3 US 2003/0013443 A1, published Jan. 16, 2003.
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852

3
OPINION
Appellant argues AAPA does not teach “said procedure for
information transfer is performed at least upon change of said particular
information in said core network,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claims 11, 13, and 16. Appeal Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically,
Appellant argues that AAPA describes that “roaming agreement information
is communicated during phases of setting up or relocating a radio access
bearer service” but that the “communication of roaming agreement
information in AAPA is not performed upon change of the roaming
agreement information in the core network.” Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that “the serving . . . networks information” in AAPA, i.e.,
information about which particular network provides cellular service,
teaches “particular information.” Ans. 5; Final Act. 6–7 (citing Spec. 6:11–
26). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that there is a “change” in
AAPA’s “serving . . . networks information” when the user “roams from one
area to another area.” Ans. 5; Final Act. 6–7 (citing Spec. 6:11–26). Still
further, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that when the user roams, i.e.,
relocates from one cellular service to another, AAPA teaches performing a
“procedure for information transfer” in which roaming agreement
information is transmitted. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6–7 (citing Spec. 6:11–26).
That is, AAPA describes that when there is a change in information
regarding which network provides cellular service, roaming agreement
information is transmitted.
Appellant’s argument that AAPA’s transfer of roaming agreement
information “is not performed upon change of the roaming agreement
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852

4
information in the core network” (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3) does not
persuade us of error because that argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. The claim does not require that the transfer of roaming
agreement information be caused by a change specifically to the roaming
agreement information. Instead, the “change” required is based on a change
in “particular information,” which the claim broadly describes using a
negative limitation as any information “not transmitted in messages related
to user equipment or user equipment communication.” Further, the claim
recites that “access rights control related information includes particular
information” (emphasis added) but does not require that the particular
information is itself information defining access rights control.
Appellant agrees with the Examiner that, in AAPA, “as the user
moves during a communication session, a relocation of a radio access
network equipment serving the user equipment needs to be performed.”
Appeal Br. 6. That relocation causes the “the core network to communicate
the roaming agreement information to the radio access network.”
Spec. 6:11–16. As such, information regarding the particular cellular
network that provides cellular service, or will provide cellular service,
changes. Indeed, the background section of the Specification, i.e., AAPA,
further describes changing information regarding location and respective
serving cellular networks:
In mechanisms for cell selection or reselection at the
initiative of the terminal, the terminal is able to tell, from
information broadcast on the beacon channels, whether a new
reselected cell (target cell) belongs to the same location area as
the current serving cell. If so, the new cell becomes the new
serving cell. If not, the terminal advises the network of this
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852

5
beforehand, using a location updating procedure, in order to
have the user’s right to access the new cell verified.
Spec. 3:28–36. Even if the claimed “procedure for information transfer” is
not caused by a change in allowed network or roaming agreement
information, the claim only requires the change to be caused by a change to
“particular information.” Appellant has not presented persuasive evidence
or argument addressing the Examiner’s finding that the change in
information regarding the cellular network providing cellular service,
discussed in AAPA, teaches a “change of said particular information.” See
Reply Br. 2–4; see also Ans. 5–7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
AAPA teaches “said procedure for information transfer is performed at least
upon change of said particular information in said core network,” as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 11, 13, and 16. Appellant does not
argue separate patentability for dependent claims 8–10, 14, and 17–24,
which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 11, 13, and 16. Appeal
Br. 9. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 8–11, 13, 14, and 16–24.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 8–11, 13,
14, 16–24
103(a) AAPA,
Willars
1, 8–11, 13,
14, 16–24

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-009090
Application 10/509,852

6
AFFIRMED