Sprint Spectrum L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 14, 2020

2019002629 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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.
15/464,610 03/21/2017 Siddharth S. Oroskar 11626 4863
28005 7590 08/14/2020
Sprint Spectrum L.P.
6391 Sprint Parkway
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
Overland Park, KS 66251
EXAMINER
SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2020 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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
docketing@mbhb.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SIDDHARTH S. OROSKAR
and JASINDER P. SINGH
____________

Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU,
and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, 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 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Sprint Spectrum L.P. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to controlling handover of wireless
communication devices between base stations in a wireless communication
system. See Spec. 4:2–7, 5:7–6:3.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method for controlling wireless communication device
(WCD) handover from a first base station to a second base
station, wherein each base station is configured to serve wireless
communication devices (WCDs), wherein each WCD has a
respective defined set of capabilities, the method comprising:
selecting by the first base station, from among multiple
WCDs currently served by the first base station, a WCD to be
handed over from being served by the first base station to being
served by the second base station, wherein the selecting of the
WCD to be handed over is based on the WCD’s defined set of
capabilities not including support for use of a particular
communication scheme that the first base station is configured
to support using for air interface communication; and
processing by the first base station handover of the
selected WCD from being served by the first base station to being
served by the second base station.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kallin2 and Lim.3 Final Act. 2–8; Ans. 3–8.

2 Kallin et al., US 2011/0128862 A1 (pub. June 2, 2011).
3 Lim et al., US 9,661,548 B2 (iss. May 23, 2017).
Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610

3
OPINION
Appellant argues that the combination of Kallin and Lim fails to teach
or suggest that “the selecting of the WCD to be handed over is based on the
WCD’s defined set of capabilities not including support for use of a
particular communication scheme that the first base station is configured to
support using for air interface communication,” as recited in independent
claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 16. Appeal Br. 5.
For this limitation, the Examiner finds that Kallin discloses selecting
the WCD to be handed over “based on the WCD’s defined set of capabilities
for use of a particular communication scheme that the first base station is
configured to support using for air interface communication.” Final Act. 3
(citing Kallin ¶¶ 40–44, 73, 78, Figs. 1, 4A). Specifically, the Examiner
finds that Kallin “discloses consideration of different service capabilities/
requirements, traffic and user profiles, etc.” in selecting a WCD for
handover. Id.; see Ans. 10–11. The Examiner further finds that “Lim
discloses handover control based on whether or not a user supports a
particular data modulation scheme that the first base station is configured to
support.” Final Act. 3 (citing Lim Abstr., 1:39–2:27, 8:29–9:27, 10:62–
11:5, 13:20–14:16, Figs. 7, 8, 10). According to the Examiner, “Lim is
further relied upon to specifically consider a particular modulation scheme,
a narrower interpretation of communication scheme,” and “[t]he rejection
posits to modify Kallin . . . to more specifically consider support of various
modulations such as the recognition of 64 and 256 QAM.” Ans. 11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown that either
reference, or their combination, teaches or suggests that “the selecting of the
WCD to be handed over is based on the WCD’s defined set of capabilities
Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610

4
not including support for use of a particular communication scheme that the
first base station is configured to support using for air interface
communication.” Kallin discloses selecting WCDs (“user equipment
(UEs)”) for handover based on calculated user throughputs of WCDs.
Kallin ¶¶ 21, 40. Kallin’s disclosure that “a UE may belong to a certain
subscription category, may use a particular service, etc.” and “base stations
may have different capabilities” is in the context of the UE’s particular
subscription category or service or base station’s capabilities affecting the
amount of resources available to the UE/user, therefore affecting the user
throughput calculation. Id. ¶ 44 (cited at Final Act. 3; Ans. 10–11). While
the Examiner finds that high versus low user throughputs in Kallin “may be
considered as two different ‘communication schemes’” (Final Act. 9; see
Ans. 10), we disagree that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
“communication scheme that the first base station is configured to support
using for air interface communication” includes user throughput.
Kallin also discloses considering that “several different services (e.g.,
offered by network 100) . . . may pose different requirements (e.g., delay and
bit error targets, guaranteed and non-guaranteed bit rates, etc.) on service
delivery” in determining handover border shifts. Kallin ¶ 73 (cited at Final
Act. 3). This is a consideration of service delivery requirements posed by
network services in changing handover borders, rather than selecting a WCD
for handover based on the WCD’s capabilities lacking support for a
particular communication scheme supported by a base station. Furthermore,
as Appellant points out, Kallin’s example of moving a handover border for
best effort data users, but not for voice users, does not indicate that a WCD
selected for handover does not include support for voice communication.
Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610

5
See Kallin ¶ 73; Appeal Br. 6–7. Finally, Kallin’s disclosure of selecting
WCDs “with particular traffic or user profiles” for handover does not
indicate that they are selected based on their defined set of capabilities not
including support for a particular communication scheme. See Kallin ¶ 78
(cited at Final Act. 3).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that the cited disclosures of Kallin do
not teach or suggest selecting a WCD for handover based on the WCD’s
defined set of capabilities not including support for a particular
communication scheme. See Appeal Br. 6–7.
We further agree with Appellant that Lim does not teach or suggest
selecting a WCD for handover based on its defined set of capabilities not
including support for a particular communication scheme. See Appeal Br. 8.
Specifically, we agree that Lim discloses handover control based on whether
a cell is capable of supporting a particular communication scheme, e.g., 256
QAM, not whether a WCD is capable of supporting a communication
scheme. See Lim 2:21–23, 13:43–45; Appeal Br. 8; see also Lim 8:30–44,
9:15–17, 13:51–54 (disclosing determining whether to perform handover
based on measured cell quality or signal intensity). While the Examiner
finds that “the cited disclosure of Lim relies upon support (or lack of
support) of particular modulation schemes on both the base station/cell as
well as the UE” (Final Act. 9 (emphasis added)), the Examiner provides no
support for the finding that Lim considers the WCD/UE’s capabilities in
selecting the WCD/UE for handover.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
combination of Kallin and Lim fails to teach or suggest that “the selecting of
the WCD to be handed over is based on the WCD’s defined set of
Appeal 2019-002629
Application 15/464,610

6
capabilities not including support for use of a particular communication
scheme that the first base station is configured to support using for air
interface communication,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly
recited in independent claims 9 and 16.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1–20 as being unpatentable over Kallin and Lim.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kallin and Lim.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Kallin, Lim 1–20