Alcatel Lucent

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2021

2020002224 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
15/327,957 01/20/2017 Osman Aydin LUTZ 202206US01 4525
48116 7590 11/04/2021
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
SCHEIBEL, ROBERT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2021 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OSMAN AYDIN,
ILARIA MALANCHINI, and JENS GEBERT
____________

Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957
Technology Center 2400
____________

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

FENICK, 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, 2, 5–8, 11, and 13–15.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Alcatel Lucent as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner indicates that claims 3, 4, 9, 10, and 12 would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 27.
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to wireless telecommunications,
specifically small cell base stations mounted on unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs), also known as drones. Spec. 1:2–16. Drone base stations are
placed or moved according to changes in traffic demand. Id. at 1:16–2:6. In
some embodiments of the invention, a first drone base station that has to
stop its service is replaced with a second drone base station that uses the
same cell identifier as the first drone base station, so as to provide a seamless
replacement which is invisible to connected user terminals. Id. at 2:24–30.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 14 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of replacing a first drone base station with a
second drone base station, the method comprising:
sending by the first drone base station first pilot signals
indicating a cell identifier;
receiving by the first drone base station information that the
second drone base station is in the vicinity of the first drone base
station;
sending by the second drone base station second pilot signals
which indicate the same cell identifier as the first drone base station;
receiving by the first drone base station from the second drone
base station an indication to cease to send first pilot signals; and
dependent upon receiving by the first drone base station from the
second drone base station the indication to cease to send first pilot
signals, ceasing by the first drone base station the sending of first pilot
signals.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rubin,3 Xu,4 and Ingale.5 Final Act. 6–11.
The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubin, Xu, Ingale, and Choi.6 Final Act. 18–20.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubin, Xu, Ingale, and Reddiboyana.7 Final Act. 20–21.
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Rubin, Xu, Ingale, Reddiboyana, and Seo.8 Final
Act. 21–22.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ubhi,9 Xu, and Ingale. Final Act. 12–14.
The Examiner rejects claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ubhi, Xu, Ingale, and Seo, and Reddiboyana. Final
Act. 22–24.
The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ubhi, Rubin, Xu, and Ingale. Final Act. 14–18.

3 Rubin et al., US 2013/0337822 A1 (pub. Dec. 19, 2013).
4 Xu et al., US 2012/0281640 A1 (pub. Nov. 8, 2012).
5 Ingale et al., US 2015/0092578 A1 (pub. Apr. 2, 2015).
6 Choi et al., US 2014/0335869 A1 (pub. Nov. 13, 2014).
7 Reddiboyana et al., US 2014/0219248 A1 (pub. Aug. 7, 2014).
8 Seo et al., US 2014/0003327 A1 (pub. Jan. 2, 2014).
9 Ubhi et al., US 2015/0379874 A1 (pub. Dec. 31, 2015).
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

4
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ubhi, Rubin, Xu, Ingale, Seo, and Reddiboyana. Final
Act. 24–26.
OPINION
Independent Claims 1 and 8
In rejecting independent claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds that
Rubin discloses replacing a first drone base station with a second drone base
station. Final Act. 6–7, 9–10 (citing Rubin ¶¶ 101–102, 104, 403, Table 10).
The Examiner relies upon Xu for the limitation of “sending by the second
drone base station second pilot signals which indicate the same cell identifier
as the first drone base station,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claim 8 (emphasis added). Final Act. 7–8, 10 (citing Xu ¶ 34). Specifically,
the Examiner cites Xu’s disclosure of remote radio heads (RRHs) and the
macro-eNB10 of a cell all having the same cell identifier, with the benefit
that “the hand-off between the RRHs and the macro-eNB within the cell is
transparent to a [user equipment (UE)].” Xu ¶ 34; see id. ¶ 31, Fig. 5.
Appellant argues that Rubin’s first and second drone base stations
have different cell identifiers, and Xu’s RRHs and macro-eNB operate in
parallel, rather than replacing each other. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Rubin ¶ 101;
Xu ¶¶ 29–33); Reply Br. 3–4. We find these arguments unpersuasive
because Appellant attacks the references individually without consideration
of what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art, as described by the Examiner. See Final Act. 7–8, 10. One

10 Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN)
node B, a base station component for an LTE network.
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

5
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine Rubin and Xu because Xu’s disclosure of using the same cell
identifier for the RRHs and macro-ENB of a cell “would be considered to be
incompatible with Rubin,” in which the first and second drone base stations
have different cell identifiers. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Rubin ¶ 101); Reply
Br. 4. We are not apprised of error by this conclusory attorney argument.
Appellant argues that “the Examiner has not provided explicit and
clear reasoning to support a motivation to combine the references” (Appeal
Br. 9) and that the Examiner’s “reasoning is based on improper hindsight
analysis” (Reply Br. 4). We disagree. The Examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same cell
identifier, as disclosed by Xu, for Rubin’s first and second drone base
stations in order to “allow the handover being performed by [the first and
second drone base stations] during replacement to perform a handoff that is
transparent to the UEs served,” drawing the motivation to combine directly
from Xu’s disclosure. Final Act. 7–8, 10 (citing Xu ¶ 34). According to the
Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Xu’s handover
teachings relevant to Rubin’s drone base station replacement because
“replacing a drone base station with another drone base station is analogous
to prior art handovers.” Ans. 3–4. We agree with the Examiner and find
that the Examiner provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

6
underpinning to support the legal conclusion that it would been obvious to
combine Rubin and Xu, resulting in “sending by the second drone base
station second pilot signals which indicate the same cell identifier as the first
drone base station” as claimed. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007).
Appellant argues that combining Rubin and Xu “would likely result
[in] two UAVs having different cell IDs.” See Appeal Br. 9, 20; Reply
Br. 4. This argument relies on the “first scenario” taught by Xu, ignoring the
“second scenario” of the same paragraph, without explanation. Xu ¶ 34.
Without more explanation or support, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Examiner relies upon Ingale for the limitation of “receiving by
the first drone base station from the second drone base station an indication
to cease to send first pilot signals,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claim 8 (emphasis added). Final Act. 8, 10–11 (citing Ingale ¶ 55).
Specifically, the Examiner cites Ingale’s disclosure of “signaling
communication between the base station 104 and the non-serving base
station 106 happen[ing] over an X2 interface,” where “the serving cell 104
transmits a command through an ‘X2’ interface to the non-serving cell 106
to turn off the beacon signal transmission.” Ingale ¶ 55. According to the
Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
allow Rubin’s first and second drone base stations to communicate directly
over an X2 interface as disclosed by Ingale “in order to reduce signaling
overhead, increase efficiency, and increase decision making speed.” Final
Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

7
Appellant argues that
Ingale does not appear to specifically disclose the claimed
features of a second drone base station (e.g., the serving base
station 104 of Ingale) sending second pilot signals indicating the
same cell identifier as a first drone base station (e.g., the non-
serving base station 106 of Ingale) or sending the indication to
cease sending first pilot signals to the first drone base station.
Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, “Ingale is silent as to the claimed
features such as signals indicating the same cell identifier.” Id. at 12
(emphasis omitted). Appellant refers to portions of the Specification that
“describe in greater detail the take-over of the wireless service by
Drone-BS-B (i.e., the second drone base station), including message-
exchange between the drone base stations.” Id. at 10–12 (citing
Spec. 10:8–31, Fig. 6).
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above,
we agree with the Examiner that “sending by the second drone base station
second pilot signals which indicate the same cell identifier as the first drone
base station” would have been obvious over Rubin and Xu. With respect to
the limitation of “receiving by the first drone base station from the second
drone base station an indication to cease to send first pilot signals,”
Appellant’s reference to portions of the Specification are unavailing;
Appellant does not make clear why these portions are referenced or quoted,
and, to the extent they are quoted to directly distinguish Ingale, they are not
persuasive as we do not import limitations from the Specification into the
claims. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding of
obviousness based on the combination of Rubin, Xu, and Ingale.
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of independent
claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 2 and 5–7 not separately argued by
Appellant.
Independent Claims 11 and 14
In rejecting independent claims 11 and 14, the Examiner applies Ubhi
as the primary reference, finding that Ubhi discloses replacing a first drone
base station with a second drone base station. Final Act. 12–16 (citing
Ubhi ¶¶ 72–73, Figs. 5E–F). The Examiner relies upon Xu and Ingale in a
similar manner as described above with respect to claims 1 and 8. See
id. at 13–14, 17–18. For claim 14, the Examiner also relies upon Rubin as a
secondary reference. Id. at 16–17.
Appellant argues that “there is no discussion of cell IDs” in Ubhi and
that there is thus “nothing in Ubhi to lead one of ordinary skill in the art to
even look to the teachings of Xu.” Appeal Br. 15, 19; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant again argues that “the Examiner has not provided explicit and
clear reasoning to support a motivation to combine the references” and that
the Examiner’s “reasoning is based on an improper hindsight analysis.”
Appeal Br. 15, 19–20; see Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. As with claims 1 and 8, the Examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ubhi and Xu in
order to allow Ubhi’s drone base stations to “perform a handoff that is
transparent to the UEs served . . . during replacement.” Final Act. 13, 17
(citing Xu ¶ 34). Thus, we find that the Examiner provides sufficient
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion that it would been obvious to combine Ubhi and Xu. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 418.
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

9
Appellant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 11 and 14
mirror those made with respect to claims 1 and 8, which we have addressed
above. See Appeal Br. 14–21.
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding of
obviousness based on the combination of Ubhi, Xu, and Ingale for claim 11
and Ubhi, Rubin, Xu, and Ingale for claim 14. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections of independent claims 11 and 14 and dependent
claims 13 and 15 not separately argued by Appellant.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 13–15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 8 103 Rubin, Xu, Ingale 1, 7, 8
2 103 Rubin, Xu, Ingale,
Choi
2
5 103 Rubin, Xu, Ingale,
Reddiboyana
5
6 103 Rubin, Xu, Ingale,
Reddiboyana, Seo
6
11 103 Ubhi, Xu, Ingale 11
13 103 Ubhi, Xu, Ingale,
Seo, Reddiboyana
13
14 103 Ubhi, Rubin, Xu,
Ingale
14
Appeal 2020-002224
Application 15/327,957

10

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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

15 103 Ubhi, Rubin, Xu,
Ingale, Seo,
Reddiboyana
15
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–8, 11,
13–15