Nokia Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 17, 2020

2019003000 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
14/515,829 10/16/2014 Jussi-Pekka Koskinen 059864.02462 7431
11051 7590 11/17/2020
SQUIRE PB (Nokia)
Nokia Technologies Oy
ATTN: IP Department
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
EXAMINER
KO, SITHU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2020 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):
IP-Squire@SquirePB.com
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUSSI-PEKKA KOSKINEN, ILKKA KESKITALO,
JORMA KAIKKONEN, and LARS DALSGAARD
___________________

Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16, which constitute all of
the pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 2. Claims 3, 4, and 11 have been canceled.
Appeal Br., Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Oct. 16, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed Jan. 22, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed
Sept. 17, 2018 (“Appeal Br”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Jan. 11, 2019
(“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Mar. 5, 2019.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Nokia Technologies Oy as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a mobile
user device configured for reporting mobility state estimates (MSE) or
mobility history information including a set of cell identifiers along with the
time spent by the user device in the cells of a network and out of coverage of
a cell of a network. Spec. ¶¶ 30, 34, 45.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program
code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the
apparatus at least to report mobility information to an associated
network; and
indicate, to the network, one or more time periods during which
the apparatus has been out of service coverage of the network by
adding an identifier to the mobility information to indicate a time
spent by the apparatus out of the service coverage of the network,
wherein the mobility information comprises mobility history
information, and
wherein the mobility history information comprises a set of cell
identifiers and time spent by the apparatus in a cell of the network or
out of coverage of a cell of the network.

Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

3
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Publ’d/Issued
Sebire US 2008/0043672 A1 Feb. 21, 2008
Kamei US 2010/0046385 A1 Feb. 25, 2010
Dhanapal US 2013/0033988 A1 Feb. 7, 2013
Kim US 2013/0229931 A1 Sept. 5, 2013

IV. REJECTIONS4
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–10 and 12–16, as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–10, 12, and 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sebire, Kim,
and Dhanapal. Final Act. 3–8.
2. Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Sebire, Kim, Dhanapal,
and Kamei. Final Act. 9.
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6–11, and the Reply Brief, pages 2–6. We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner has objected to claim 19 as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten in independent
form to include the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Final Act. 24.
Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

4
Final Office Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3–11; Ans. 3–10. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues, inter alia, that
the combination of Sebire, Kim, and Dhanapal does not teach or suggest the
“mobility history information comprises a set of cell identifiers and time
spent by the apparatus in a cell of the network or out of coverage of a cell of
the network,” as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 10. In particular,
Appellant argues that Kim’s disclosure of a user equipment (UE) reporting
mobility history information including current and previous cell information
(ID or stay time) does not cure the admitted deficiencies of Sebire. Id. at 10
(citing Kim ¶¶ 266, 267, 272), Reply Br. 4. Further, Appellant argues that
Dhanapal’s disclosure of determining the time a mobile device moves into
an out of coverage area is similarly deficient. Id. at 10 (citing Dhanapal
¶ 43).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner
error. As a preliminary matter, we note that the disputed claim limitations
set forth above recite the alternative language “or.” Therefore, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed claim language requires that
the mobility history information comprises: (1) a set of cell identifiers and
time spent by the apparatus in a cell of the network; or (2) a set of cell
identifiers and out of coverage of a cell of the network. As correctly noted
by the Examiner, the cited paragraphs of Kim disclose a terminal configured
to report history mobility/state information on a cell or node on which it has
been camped. Ans. 4–5, Final Act. 4 (citing Kim ¶¶ 266, 267, Table 1). As
depicted in Table 1 of Kim, the reported mobility history information
Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

5
includes cell ID, current /past stay time on a cell, cell selection/reselection in
the idle state, number of cells a terminal has camped. Kim ¶ 268. As further
correctly noted by the Examiner, Dhanapal discloses a user device reporting
history information including the time period during which a user device
moves to an out of coverage area in a network. Ans. 4–5, Final Act. 4–5
(citing Dhanapal ¶ 43). We are satisfied that the proposed combination of
Sebire, Kim, and Dhanapal teaches at least the UE reporting mobility history
information including at least a set of cell identifiers and time spent by the
UE in a cell of the network. Because the proposed combination of Sebire,
Kim, and Dhanapal discloses at least one of the alternative claim limitations
required by the disputed claim language, we agree with the Examiner that
the cited combination teaches the disputed claim limitations. Ans. 4.
Moreover, Appellant has not provided a meaningful analysis to rebut
the specific findings made by the Examiner. Instead, Appellant’s arguments
merely repeat the claim language, and the cited portions of Kim and
Dhanapal without comparing and contrasting the two. We remind Appellant
that merely repeating the claim language, and the teachings relied upon by
the Examiner in the rejection are not tantamount to a responsive argument.
Such a response to the Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of
Examiner error, as mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that
are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip
op. at 7–8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

6
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Our
rules require that an Appeal Brief include “arguments” that “shall explain
why the examiner erred.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). “[M]ere statements
of disagreement . . . do not amount to a developed argument.” SmithKline
Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2, 4–10 and 12–16, Appellant has
not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for the patentability of
claim 1. As such, claims 2, 4–10, and 12–16 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
VI. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims
1, 2, 4–10, and 12–16.
Appeal 2019-003000
Application 14/515,829

7
VII. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–10,
12, 14–16 103
Sebire, Kim,
Dhanapal,
1, 2, 4, 6–10,
12, 14–16
5, 13 103 Sebire, Kim, Dhanapal, Kamei 5, 13
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–10, 12–
16

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED