2020001395 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 26, 2021

2020001395 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2021)

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. 15/321,216 12/22/2016 Peter van Loon 4015-9794 / P43293-US1 8918 24112 7590 05/26/2021 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER PANNELL, MARK G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/26/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PETER VAN LOON and HANS VAN NISPEN ____________ Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 19–35, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 3 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention “generally relates to a method for requesting services at a mobile network for a User Equipment (UE) and, more specifically, to method steps performed to determine a Quality of Service relating to the location of the UE.” Spec. 1.2 Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (with formatting added for clarity): 19. A method for adapting services provided by a mobile network for one of a plurality of mobile User Equipment (UE), wherein one or more geographical home zones for the UE are provided in the mobile network in which one or more location based Home Zone services are offered to the UE, the method comprising: receiving, by a location server, location information regarding the UE in the mobile network; determining, by the location server, whether the UE is located in or outside the one or more geographical home zones based on the received location information; determining, by the location server, that the UE has entered or left the one or more geographical home zones; transmitting, by the location server and triggered by the determination that the UE has entered or left the one or more geographical home zones, a spatial trigger message to an application server for indicating that the UE has respectively entered or left the one or more geographical home zones; and adapting, by the application server, a LIE-specific quality of service at the mobile network depending on whether the UE is located in or outside the one or more geographical home zones. 2 We refer to the Specification filed Dec. 22, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed Jan. 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed July 16, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 16, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 12, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Name Reference Date Yafuso US 2003/0103470 A1 June 5, 2003 Maanoja et al. (“Maanoja”) US 2004/0266453 A1 Dec. 30, 2004 Patel US 6,850,764 B1 Feb. 1, 2005 Dhillon et al. (“Dhillon”) US 2006/0258394 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Agarwal et al. (“Agarwal”) US 2009/0003265 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 19–21, 23, 25–28, and 30–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maanoja and Patel. Final Act. 5. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maanoja, Patel, and Dhillon. Final Act. 27. Claims 24 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maanoja, Patel, and Agarwal. Final Act. 28. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Maanoja, Patel, and Yafuso. Final Act. 30. ANALYSIS Claim 19 recites “adapting, by the application server, a UE-specific quality of service at the mobile network depending on whether the UE is located in or outside the one or more geographical home zones.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added) (Claims Appendix). The Examiner relies on Patel’s bandwidth allocation to teach the disputed limitation. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Patel, 16:40–67). Specifically, Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 5 the Examiner finds that “Patel makes it clear that the allocation of bandwidth for a specific UE is made depending on the geo-location of that UE.” Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4 (citing Patel, 16:40–67). The Examiner finds that Patel teaches that “the geo-location areas 16 are each a defined area in which bandwidth may be allocated to mobile devices.” Ans. 4 (citing Patel, Fig. 1, 5:14–20, 12:26–31). Appellant argues that “Patel is not concerned with adapting a UE- specific QoS based on a geographical location of that UE, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant argues that instead “Patel focuses on the aggregate demand of a plurality of UEs on base stations serving different cells, and on the allocation of bandwidth resources in the aggregate to those base stations.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2–3. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred. As cited by the Examiner, Patel discloses “geo-location areas 16 are each a defined area in which bandwidth may be allocated to mobile devices.” Patel, col. 5:14–15. Patel discloses “estimating and allocating bandwidth for mobile devices 18 dependent on its geo-location QoS provisioning and mutual interference with other devices.” Id. at 16:56–59 (emphasis added). Patel’s description for allocating bandwidth for a mobile device “dependent on its geo-location” (rather than dependent on their geo- locations) suggests allocating bandwidth for a singular mobile device. Appellant also argues that the cited passages of Patel teach “only that a mobile unit is granted bandwidth based on whether it is currently located relatively near the server or closer to the cell edge.” Reply Br. 4. Here, Appellant’s argument acknowledges that Patel teaches allocating bandwidth to a mobile unit based on its geolocation. Specifically, Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 6 Patel discloses “a mobile unit demanding 64 kbps at a location which is very close to the server 14, may be granted the request while the request may be denied if the mobile unit 18 is located at the edge of the coverage of the server 14.” Patel 12:26–31 (emphasis added). Appellant does not persuasively explain why Patel’s granting bandwidth to “a mobile unit” depending on the location of “the mobile unit” fails to teach or otherwise suggest the claimed “adapting . . . a UE-specific quality of service” (i.e., bandwidth for a mobile unit) “depending on whether the UE is located in or outside the one or more geographical home zones” (i.e., depending on the location of the mobile unit). Appellant also argues that “no one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to combine Maanoja and Patel” because the teachings of the references “are simply not relevant to each other.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues that “the Examiner’s proffered reasons for modifying Maanoja according to Patel are wholly conclusory and unsupported by the cited art.” Reply Br. 6. Although Appellant argues that the Examiner did not provide support, the Examiner’s support is set forth in the Final Action. See Final Act. 8. Specifically, the Examiner determines that “Maanoja discloses an application server receiving an indication of a subscriber entering or leaving an area” and that “Patel discloses an application server allocating bandwidth based on a geo-location of a mobile device,” which teachings “can be easily combined to achieve what they each disclose and will yield predictable results.” Ans. 6–7; see also Final Act. 8. For example, the Examiner finds that Maanoja’s benefits, including “efficient targeted push type messaging” and applying a “cheaper rate” within a geographical area, is still disclosed when combined with Patel. Ans. 6. That is, the Examiner provides a Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 7 rationale for combining Maanojaj’s benefits, including Maanoja’s application server targeting message based on the geographical location of a mobile device, with Patel’s “bandwidth based on the geo-location of a mobile device.” Id. at 6–7. We agree with the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Maanoja and Patel. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 23, 28, 33, and 34, and dependent claims 20–22, 24–27, 29–32, and 35, which are not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 10–11. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 19–35. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 19–21, 23, 25–28, 30– 34 103 Maanoja, Patel 19–21, 23, 25–28, 30– 34 22 103 Maanoja, Patel, Dhillon 22 24, 29 103 Maanoja, Patel, Agarwal 24, 29 35 103 Maanoja, Patel, Yafuso 35 Overall Outcome 19–35 Appeal 2020-001395 Application 15/321,216 8 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