APPLE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 15, 2021

2020002254 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 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.
15/592,980 05/11/2017 Gahima S. MBONYE 30134/22602(P32938US1) 4630
114746 7590 09/15/2021
Apple Inc. -- FKM
150 Broadway
Suite 702
New York, NY 10038
EXAMINER
MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2021 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):
fhall@fkmiplaw.com
mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte GAHIMA S. MBONYE, VIJAY VENKATARAMAN,
SRINIVASAN NIMMALA, THANIGAIVELU ELANGOVAN,
ABDUL-MUNEM AL-KHUDAIRI, ANISH K. GOYAL,
RAFAEL L. RIVERA-BARRETO, YIFAN ZHU, RYAN BOOTH,
LAKSHMI KAVURI, and VENKATESWARA RAO MANEPALLI
________________

Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Appeal Br.
1.2 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 lists Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief
filed August 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
March 15, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed November
27, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed January 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
2
BACKGROUND
The present invention relates to a method for optimizing the
attachment of a station (such as a smartphone or other portable device) to a
cell of a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN). Spec. ¶¶ 5, 13, 22. The
Specification explains that many mobile network operators are currently in
the process of reducing investment in legacy cellular technologies, such as
2G and 3G, in favor of expanding LTE. Id. ¶ 3. However, the Specification
explains, older generation cellular phones, such as those that lack Voice over
LTE (VoLTE) capabilities, cannot conduct voice calls on LTE only systems
and require legacy circuit switched voice networks to conduct a voice call.
Id. Under the current standards, according to the Specification, when a
station that lacks VoLTE capabilities boots up, it may attach to an LTE only
cell, only to have to detach from the cell and reattach to another cell that is
suitable, straining the station’s battery, the network’s resources, and a station
user’s time. Id. ¶ 4.
The present invention seeks to overcome this problem by providing a
method in which a station receives information from a PLMN cell, and
determines whether the received information indicates that the cell supports
circuit switched fallback (CSFB) voice calls. Spec. ¶ 5. When CSFB voice
calls are not supported, the station determines whether at least one packet
switched voice property of the station satisfies a predetermined condition.
Id. The predetermined condition, for example, may be that the station can
execute VoLTE calls over the PLMN. Id. ¶ 39. If the station satisfies the
predetermined condition, it attaches to the cell that does not support CSFB
voice calls. Id. ¶ 5. In some circumstances where the station does not have
VoLTE capabilities, it may attach to an LTE network and prioritize LTE
cells that have neighboring cells with 2G/3G capabilities. Id. ¶¶ 44–49.
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
3
Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the claims at issue in this appeal,
and are reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
at a station:
receiving information from a cell of a Public Land Mobile
Network (PLMN);
identifying that the information indicates circuit switched
fallback (CSFB) voice calls are not supported by the PLMN;
determining whether at least one packet switched voice
property of the station satisfies a predetermined condition;
when the at least one packet switched voice property
satisfies the predetermined condition, selecting the PLMN
based on identifying that CSFB voice calls are not supported by
the PLMN; and
attaching to the cell of the PLMN based on selecting the
PLMN.
16. A method comprising:
at a station connected to a Public Land Mobile Network
(PLMN):
identifying a plurality of cells of the PLMN that are
available for the station to camp on;
determining whether the station is capable of executing
packet switched calls;
when the station is not capable of executing packet
switched calls, determining whether each of the plurality of
cells of the PLMN have a neighbor cell that supports circuit
switched fallback (CSFB) voice calls; and
when at least one of the plurality of cells of the PLMN
are determined to have the neighbor cell that supports
CSFB voice calls, prioritizing the at least one of the
plurality of cells of the PLMN.
Appeal Br. 14, 16–17 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
4
THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is set forth in the following
table:
Name Reference Date
Oroskar US 9,794,416 B1 Oct. 17, 2017
Mahmood US 9,877,224 B2 Jan. 23, 2018
Edara US 2013/0044613 A1 Feb. 21, 2013
Moisanen US 2013/0136115 A1 May 30, 2013
Jeong US 2014/0348064 A1 Nov. 27, 2014
Jung US 2016/0316411 A1 Oct. 27, 2016
Jamadagni US 2016/0353333 A1 Dec. 1, 2016
Yang US 2017/0201923 A1 July 13, 2017
Ohashi US 2017/0311151 A1 Oct. 26, 2017
Final Act. 2–10.
In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13,
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jamadagni,
claims 3, 4, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jamadagni and Moisanen, claims 7 and 15 under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jamadagni and Oroskar, claims 8 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Jamadagni and Ohashi, claim 10 as being unpatentable
over Jamadagni and Yang, claim 11 as being unpatentable over Jamadagni
and Mahmood, claims 16–18 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Yang,
claim 19 as being unpatentable over Jeong, Yang, and Edara, and claim 20
as being unpatentable over Jeong, Yang, and Jung. Final Act. 2–10.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
As noted above, the Examiner rejected claim 1 as being anticipated by
Jamadagni. Final Act. 2. The dispute concerning claim 1 centers on the
issue of whether Jamadagni discloses a method for selecting a “PLMN.”
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
5
Appeal Br. 3–5; Ans. 3–4; Reply Br. 2–4. The Examiner finds that
Jamadagni discloses that its network is a PLMN in paragraph 25, and refers
to 2G, 3G, and 4G, which are used in PLMN networks, in paragraph 28.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that Jamadagni teaches determining the
network capability information of the user equipment and latching the user
equipment with the disclosed internet protocol (IP) network subsystem,
which can be a PLMN, such as a 2G, 3G, or 4G network. Id. at 4 (citing
Jamadagni ¶ 28).
Appellant argues that Jamadagni does not “make any reference to a
PLMN, let alone a method for PLMN selection.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant
contends that the term “PLMN” is used only in paragraph 25 of Jamadagni,
which discusses the prior art. Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. According to
Appellant, “it is unreasonable for the Examiner to assert that ‘Jamadagni’s
network is a PLMN’ because in Jamadagni there is not a single reference to
the term PLMN (in form or function) during a discussion of a single
exemplary embodiment.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant further contends that one
of ordinary skill “would understand that 2G, 3G and 4G networks are each
different types of radio access networks,” and “a radio access network and a
PLMN are not analogous” and “are entirely independent from one another.”
Id. To support this assertion, Appellant points to the statement in paragraph
25 of Jamadagni that “[a] user equipment may attempt to select one of [a
first radio access network or a second radio access network] rather than [a
third radio access network] for the registered . . . PLMN or any similar
equivalent PLMN.” Id. (citing Jamadagni ¶ 25). Additionally, Appellant
argues that Jamadagni’s reference to “a registered PLMN” in paragraph 25
“distinguishes a PLMN from the other aspects of a cellular environment
described throughout Jamadagni.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
6
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s
findings are in error. Appellant’s Specification defines “PLMN” as “a
regulatory term used in telecommunications representing a network
established and operated by an administration or by a recognized operating
agency for the specific purpose of providing land mobile
telecommunications to the public.” Spec. ¶ 19. We agree with the Examiner
that paragraph 25 of Jamadagni describes the use of various types of
PLMNs, including PLMNs having 2G, 3G, and LTE capability. See
Jamadagni ¶ 25 (explaining that “user equipment . . . may attempt to select”
various radio access technologies (RATs) (including GSM EDGE and
UTRAN) “for the registered public land mobile network (PLMN) or any
similar equivalent PLMN,” and that, as a result, the user equipment “may
detach from the LTE network and seeks for the 2G/3G network”).
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that radio access networks
(such as 2G and 3G) “are entirely independent from” a PLMN. To the
contrary, paragraph 25 of Jamadagni explains that radio access networks
(such as the GERAN, UTRAN, and U-TRAN radio access networks) can be
selected for the PLMN. Jamadagni ¶ 25 (“[A] user equipment . . . may
attempt to select one of the GSM EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN)
and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) radio access
technology rather than Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) for the registered public land mobile network (PLMN) or any
similar equivalent PLMN.” (emphasis added)). Jamadagni further describes
attaching or detaching from LTE or 2G/3G networks as part of PLMN
selection. Id. (explaining that, as a result of the PLMN selection, “the user
equipment may detach from the LTE network and seeks for the 2G/3G
network”). Other evidence in the record is in accord, including the
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
7
Moisanen reference cited by the Examiner, which describes a PLMN as
being provided by 2G, 3G, and 4G radio access technologies. Moisanen
¶ 21 (disclosing a system having certain areas where “the PLMN is provided
by the 2G and the 4G,” other areas where “the PLMN is provided by the 3G
and the 4G,” and additional areas “where the PLMN is provided by the 2G,
the 3G and the 4G”); see also id. ¶ 36 (stating that “the current PLMN” may
be “associated with both the 2G and the 3G”).
Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Jamadagni does not disclose use of a PLMN in its preferred embodiment
because the term “PLMN” only appears in paragraph 25, which discusses
prior art systems. To the contrary, we agree with the Examiner that
Jamadagni describes use of its invention with an “IP network subsystem”
that may be part of a PLMN and can include various technologies such as
2G, 3G, and 4G. See Ans. 4 (citing Jamadagni ¶ 28). The Examiner’s
finding is supported by Jamadagni’s disclosure that the invention is used
with an IP network subsystem 120 that supports only “packet based services
which may belong to a wide range of network[s] such as 2G, 3G, and 4G”
(which, as discussed above, may be used to provide a PLMN), and may “be
implemented using wireless standards.” Jamadagni ¶¶ 27–28. Jamadagni
further explains that IP network subsystem 120 also includes a “broadcast
module 122” that broadcasts a system information message including
network capability information that “facilitates detecting of whether the IP
network subsystem has a circuit switching capability or a packet switching
capability.” Id. ¶¶ 28–29. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood this IP network subsystem to
be part of a PLMN. Appellant also fails to sufficiently show that the use of
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
8
the term “registered” PLMN in paragraph 25 means that Jamadagni’s IP
network subsystem is not a PLMN.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15
Appellant does not separately argue Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and
15. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Claim 16
As noted above, the Examiner rejected claim 16 as obvious over
Jeong in view of Yang. Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that Jeong
teaches, at a station connected to a PLMN, identifying cells of the PLMN
that are available for the station to camp on, determining whether each of the
identified cells has a neighbor cell that supports CSFB voice calls (citing
Jeong ¶ 85), and prioritizing at least one of the plurality of cells of the
PLMN that is determined to have a neighbor cell that supports CSFB voice
calls (citing Jeong ¶ 98). Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner relies on Yang to
teach determining whether or not the station is capable of executing packet
switched calls. Id. at 8.
Appellant argues that Jeong does not disclose that the station
prioritizes a cell based on whether the cell has a neighbor cell that supports
CSFB. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues two distinctions between this
limitation of claim 16 and Jeong. Id. First, Appellant argues that claim 16
requires that the “prioritizing” is performed by the station, but paragraph 98
of Jeong describes an operation performed by the cell. Id. Second,
Appellant argues that claim 16 requires prioritizing a first cell based on
characteristics of the first cell’s neighbor cells, while Jeong makes a
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
9
determination about a cell based on the characteristics of the cell itself (such
as whether the cell supports CSFB). Id.
In response, the Examiner explains that Jeong teaches that the
prioritizing is done by the terminal in paragraph 16 and in claims 12 and 16,
which state that, “when determining whether to select the cell, the controller
. . . changes a cell selection priority based on whether the CFSB is
supported.” Ans. 7 (quoting Jeong, claim 16). In its Reply Brief, Appellant
does not argue that Jeong’s claims 12 and 16 fail to teach prioritizing by the
station, but continues to argue that Jeong prioritizes a cell based on the
characteristics of the cell itself rather than based on whether it has a
neighbor that supports CSFB. Reply Br. 7–8.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection is in error. As to
Appellant’s first argument, we agree with the Examiner that Jeong discloses
prioritizing by the terminal in paragraph 16 and in claims 12 and 16. See
Jeong ¶ 16 (“a terminal for performing cell selection” includes “a controller
configured . . . to determine whether a cell, which the terminal accesses,
supports Circuit Switched FallBack (CSFB), . . . and to determine whether to
select the cell, based on whether the cell supports the CSFB”); id., claim 12
(reciting a “terminal for performing cell selection” including “a controller
configured . . . to determine whether a cell . . . supports Circuit Switched
FallBack (CSFB) . . . and to determine whether to select the cell, based on
whether the cell supports the CSFB”); id., claim 16 (reciting that the
terminal, “when determining whether to select the cell, . . . changes a cell
selection priority based on whether the CSFB is supported”). Appellant
does not present arguments explaining why these portions of Jeong fail to
disclose this aspect of Appellant’s claim 16. See Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br.
6–7.
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
10
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s second argument that Jeong
differs from Appellant’s claim 16 because Jeong prioritizes a cell based on
the characteristics of the cell itself (such as whether the cell supports CSFB),
rather than based on the characteristics of the first cell’s neighbor cells. In
considering this issue, we first turn to the language of Appellant’s claim 16,
which recites “determining whether each of the plurality of cells of the
PLMN have a neighbor cell that supports circuit switched fallback (CSFB)
voice calls” and, “when at least one of the plurality of cells of the PLMN are
determined to have the neighbor cell that supports CSFB voice calls,
prioritizing the at least one of the plurality of cells of the PLMN.” In order
to interpret what is meant by “determining whether each of the plurality of
cells . . . have a neighbor cell that supports” CSFB, we look to the
Specification, and particularly to paragraphs 47–49 identified by Appellant
as support for this limitation. See Appeal Br. 3; Jeong ¶¶ 47–49.
Paragraphs 47–49 of Appellant’s Specification state that “[i]n an
exemplary embodiment,” the station “determines whether an LTE cell has
neighbor cells associated with legacy [radio access technologies (RATs)],
e.g., are there legacy RAT cells available for cell reselection” by
“receiv[ing] the [system information block (SIB)] data from the cell” and
“determin[ing] whether SIB 6, SIB 7 and/or SIB 8 are present in the
received data.”3 Spec. ¶ 47. The Specification explains that SIB 6–8
provide information indicating that the current cell has the ability to re-select
to 3G cells, in particular to INTER-RAT (UTRAN cells) for SIB 6, INTER-
RAT GERAN cells for SIB 7, and INTER-RAT CDMA2000 cells for SIB 8.

3 Appellant’s Specification explains that a station receives system
information blocks (SIBs), for example, SIB 1 through SIB N, from the cell.
Spec. ¶ 29, Fig. 4.
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
11
Id. ¶¶ 29–34. If SIB 6, SIB 7, and/or SIB 8 is present, “the network
application 250 may prioritize this LTE cell because CSFB voice calls are
possible.” Id. ¶ 48. Based on this disclosure in the Specification, we
interpret the claim language to cover a situation where a cell is determined to
have neighbor cells that support CSFB voice calls based on SIB information
received from a cell.
Like Appellant’s Specification, Jeong discloses a method for
determining the properties of a cell’s neighbor cells using SIB information
from a cell. For example, Jeong states that “the user terminal receives
neighboring cell information, for example, a System Information Block
(SIB) through a receiver.” Jeong ¶ 47; see id. ¶¶ 56, 75, 90. Jeong further
states that “a particular field of SIB type 8” may be used “to provide
information on a CDMA 2000 network around the LTE network” which
“may inform the user terminal as to whether CSFB is supported or not.” Id.
¶ 86. Additionally, Jeong explains, “[w]hen neighboring LTE cells can
support CSFB,” the cell “may give a relatively higher priority to LTE when
configuring reselection priorities of LTE/2G/3G frequencies of the
terminal.” Id. ¶ 98. Accordingly, Jeong prioritizes a cell based on
characteristics of its neighbor cells in the same way that Appellant’s claimed
invention does. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Jeong discloses
“determining whether each of the plurality of cells of the PLMN have a
neighbor cell that supports circuit switched fallback (CSFB) voice calls”
and, “when at least one of the plurality of cells of the PLMN are determined
to have the neighbor cell that supports CSFB voice calls, prioritizing the at
least one of the plurality of cells of the PLMN.”
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
16.
Appeal 2020-002254
Application 15/592,980
12
Claims 17–20
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 17–20.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
12, 13, 15
102 Jamadagni 1, 2, 5, 6, 9,
12, 13, 15

3, 4, 14 103 Jamadagni,
Moisanen
3, 4, 14
7, 15 103 Jamadagni,
Oroskar
7, 15
8, 15 103 Jamadagni, Ohashi 8, 15
10 103 Jamadagni, Yang 10
11 103 Jamadagni,
Mahmood
11
16–18 103 Jeong, Yang 16–18
19 103 Jeong, Yang, Edara 19
20 103 Jeong, Yang, Jung 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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