NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2020

2019006108 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 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.
15/564,877 10/06/2017 Devaki CHANDRAMOULI 089229.01434 8952
11051 7590 08/13/2020
SQUIRE PB (Nokia)
Nokia Technologies Oy
ATTN: IP Department
2550 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
EXAMINER
CUMMING, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2020 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 DEVAKI CHANDRAMOULI, DAVID NAVRATIL, and
RAINER LIEBHART

Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877
Technology Center 2600

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 11–14, 16, 19, and 32. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Nokia
Solutions and Networks Oy.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to automating the establishment of a
multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS) bearer. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8–9.
Claim 1 is illustrative of argued subject matter.
1. A method, comprising:
reporting at least a first set of user equipment location
information and at least a second set of user equipment location
information from the user equipment to at least one network
node for broadcast bearer management,
wherein the first set of user equipment location information
comprises a serving cell identity of the user equipment,
wherein the second set of user equipment location information
comprises at least one identity of at least one network service
area for media broadcasting, and
wherein broadcast bearer management is based on the at least
first set of user equipment location information and the at least
second set of user equipment location information.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fukunaga (US 2009/0245155 A1;
Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 2–5.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fukunaga and X. Zhang (US 2012/0236776 A1; Sept. 20,
2012). Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Fukunaga and D. Zhang (US 2012/0287838 A1; Nov. 15, 2012).
Final Act. 8–9.
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

3
OPINION
Claims 1, 11, and 12
Appellant contends Fukunaga does not teach or suggest the following
claim limitation: “reporting at least a first set of user equipment location
information and at least a second set of user equipment location information
from the user equipment to at least one network node for broadcast bearer
management,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 4–5.
Specifically, Appellant contends Fukunaga’s Cell ID and MBSFN Area ID
do not respectively teach the claimed first and second sets of user equipment
(UE) location information, because the Cell ID and the MBSFN Area ID are
not reported by UE (as is required of the claimed first and second sets of UE
location information). Id. In support, Appellant further contends Fukunaga
does not include the MBSFN area ID or Cell ID in the “Measurement
Report” transmitted by the UE, but rather includes the MBSFN area ID and
Cell ID in a “MBMS receiving quality report” received by the UE. Id.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellant’s argument
mischaracterizes Fukunaga’s UE reports. Fukanaga teaches that each UE
device reports receiving-quality information to a base station (BS).
Fukunaga ¶ 45. The information is reported via either a “MESSAGE
(CCCH) corresponding to RRC CONNECTION REQUEST” (id. ¶ 60) or a
“MEASUREMENT REPORT (DCCH)” (id. ¶ 59). “[P]arameters illustrated
in FIG. 5 are newly defined in the Message corresponding to the RRC
CONNECTION REQUEST or the MEASUREMENT REPORT.” Id. ¶ 62.
These parameters include the MBSFN area ID and Cell ID. Id. ¶ 63; Fig. 5.
In sum, each UE reports receiving-quality information to a BS via the
RRC CONNECTION REQUEST “Message” or the DCCH “Measurement
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

4
Report.” Id. ¶¶ 45, 59–60. And, each such “Message” and “Measurement
Report” includes the MBSFN area ID and Cell ID. Id. ¶¶ 62–63; Fig. 5.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 11 and 12
as with claim 1. App. Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 4–6. For the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
11 and 12.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the identity of the
network service area comprises a multimedia broadcast/multicast service
(MBMS) service area identity.” Appellant contends Fukunaga’s service area
identity of paragraph 66 is cited as identifying an MBMS service area, but
Fukunaga’s paragraph 66 does not teach or suggest an identification of an
MBMS service area. Appeal Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific
determination that Fukunaga’s MBSFN area ID (claimed “identity of the
network service area”) identifies an MBMS service area (claimed
“comprises a multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS) service area
identity”). Ans. 14. Appellant does not rebut this finding, e.g., via a
response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
Claims 4 and 14
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the reporting
comprises reporting from the user equipment . . . to an intermediate node.”
Appellant contends “[t]he Office Action has merely identified figures and
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

5
paragraphs [of Fukunaga] without providing specific identification to . . . a
disclosure or suggestion of the [claimed] reporting.” Appeal Br. 11.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific
determination, in the Answer, that Fukunaga’s BS and MCE each teach or
suggest the claimed intermediate node. Ans. 15–17. Appellant does not
rebut this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 14 as with
claim 4. App. Br. 14. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim
4, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Claim 32
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 32 as with
claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are
unpersuaded of error.
Appellant also argues that Fukunaga does not teach a “non-transitory
computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed in
hardware, perform . . . the [claimed] process.” Appeal Br. 15. We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellant does not contest the
Examiner’s finding that Fukunaga’s “hardware (figure 1) [] performs [the
claimed] process (figure 2 for example), and inherently must have some
memory (a nontransitory computer-readable medium encoded with
instructions) to store data and programs . . . operat[ing]” the process.
Ans. 18; see also Reply Br. 4–6 (not addressing claim 32).
Claims 3 and 13
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the serving cell
identity of the user equipment comprises a cell global identifier.” Appellant
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

6
contends the Examiner finds, but fails to show, X. Zhang’s global identifier
of paragraph 203 teaches or suggests the claimed “serving cell identity of the
user equipment.” Appeal Br. 16.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific
determination that Fukunaga teaches a serving cell identity of user
equipment and X. Zhang teaches that a serving cell identity can be a global
identifier and namely a “Cell Global Identity (CGI).” Ans. 20. Appellant
does not rebut this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 13 as with
claim 3. App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim
3, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 13.
Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and adds: “wherein the apparatus
comprises . . . a broadcast multicast service center.” Appellant contends the
Examiner finds, but fails to show, X. Zhang’s paragraphs 5 and 7–8 teach or
suggest the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 16–17.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific
determination that X. Zhang’s MBMS gateway of paragraphs 184–85
teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Ans. 21–22. Appellant does
not contest this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, for the
reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Claims 6 and 16
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 6 and 16
as with claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16.
Appeal 2019-006108
Application 15/564,877

7
OVERALL CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 11–14, 16,
19, and 32.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 11, 12,
14, 32 § 102(a)(1) Fukunaga
1, 2, 4, 11, 12,
14, 32
3, 13, 19 § 103 Fukunaga, X. Zhang 3, 13, 19
6, 16 § 103 Fukunaga, D. Zhang 6, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 11–14,
16, 19, 32
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED