British Telecommunications Public Limited CompanyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 9, 20212021005047 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 16/310,948 12/18/2018 Richard MACKENZIE 4359.212WOUS01 3620 135778 7590 12/09/2021 Patterson Thuente Pedersen, P.A. 4800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH 8TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-2100 EXAMINER TRAN, THINH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2021 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): efsuspto@ptslaw.com rabe@ptslaw.com rausch@ptslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD MACKENZIE, ZAID AL-DAHER, and MICHAEL FITCH Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 1–8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as British Telecommunications Public Limited Company. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “[m]ulticast-broadcast mobile communications network.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of operating a mobile communications network comprising a plurality of base stations, each base station comprising at least one transceiver, and wherein a first transceiver is comprised in a first base station, the method comprising: at the first base station: operating the first transceiver to: transmit a first signal to serve a mobile terminal over multicast; and receive information from the mobile terminal, wherein the information is a value of Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) of a second signal received at the mobile terminal from a second transceiver that is not serving the mobile terminal; and receive further information from the mobile terminal, wherein the further information includes signal quality information of the first signal received at the mobile terminal from the first transceiver and wherein the further information also includes signal quality information of a third signal received at the mobile terminal from a third transceiver; on the basis of a comparison of the RSRP or the RSRQ information of the second signal received at the mobile terminal with a threshold, switching communications between the first transceiver and the Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 3 mobile terminal from multicast to unicast; and subsequently on the basis of a comparison of the signal quality information of the first signal and the signal quality information of the third signal, both received at the mobile terminal, when the signal quality information of the first signal is no longer greater than the signal quality information of the third signal, providing to the mobile terminal an instruction instructing the mobile terminal to transition from being served by the first transceiver to being served by the third transceiver. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mochizuki US 2009/0175183 A1 July 9, 2009 Lu US 2016/0105894 A1 Apr. 14, 2016 Zhu US 2016/0211980 A1 July 21, 2016 Wang US 2018/0263074 A1 Sept. 13, 2018 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhu, Wang, and Mochizuki. Final Act. 3–11. Claims 2–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Zhu, Wang, Mochizuki, and Lu. Final Act. 11–16. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 7, and 8 over Zhu, Wang, and Mochizuki The Examiner finds Zhu, Wang, and Mochizuki teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–7; see also Ans. 3–10. In particular, the Examiner finds Zhu teaches “receive information from the mobile terminal, wherein Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 4 the information is a value of signal quality of a second signal received at the mobile terminal” Final Act. 4 (citing Zhu ¶¶ 36, 91, 93). The Examiner further finds Wang teaches “wherein the Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal Received Quality (RSRQ) of a second signal received at the mobile terminal from a second transceiver that is not serving the mobile terminal.” Final Act. 5 (citing Wang ¶¶ 54, 55, 56). The Examiner further finds Zhu teaches “on the basis of a comparison of the signal quality information of the second signal received at the mobile terminal with a threshold, switching communications between the first transceiver and the mobile terminal from multicast to unicast.” Final Act. 4 (citing Zhu ¶¶ 91, 93, 94). The Examiner reasons: It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to implement the system or method as taught by the fourth embodiment of WANG in the system of ZHU to determine the RSRP or RSRQ including the signal from the non serving cell. The motivation would have been to provide seamless transmission from multicast to unicast transmission. Final Act. 5. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: The proposed combination of Zhu, Wang, and Mochizuki fails to disclose or suggest, on the basis of a comparison of the RSRP or RSRQ signal quality information of the second signal received at the mobile terminal with a threshold, switching communications between the first transceiver and the mobile terminal from multicast to unicast. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant agrees with the Examiner that Zhu fails to disclose the required second signal or the required switching communications between the first transceiver and the mobile Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 5 terminal from multicast to unicast on the basis of a comparison of the RSRP or the RSRQ information of the second signal received at the mobile terminal with a threshold. Appeal Br. 16. “Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner’s summary of Wang is incorrect, and moreover, Wang fails to disclose the required limitations.” Appeal Br. 17. “Wang explicitly teaches a target node handover and not a multicast to unicast transition.” Appeal Br. 18. “There is simply no disclosure in Wang that the signal quality information can be used in a multicast to unicast switching decision between the first transceiver and the mobile terminal.” Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 4–7. One skilled in the art is therefore presented with two teachings. The first teaching, of Zhu, is that the mobile terminal should switch from multicast to unicast based on the strength of the eMBMS signal (that is, the multicast signal serving the mobile terminal). The second teaching, of Wang, is that the mobile terminal may use signal quality information from target nodes in its handover decision. As explained above, there is no indication in either Zhu or Wang that the signal quality information of signals from a transceiver not serving the mobile terminal may be used in a multicast to unicast switching decision. Appeal Br. 18–19. The Examiner’s motivation to combine the references “is completely without basis, as there is no teaching that use of this signal quality information [taught by Wang] would provide a seamless transition [from multicast to unicast in Zhu].” Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 7–8. In response, the Examiner explains Wang discloses “using of the measurement of the RSRP or RSRQ to handover to the target nodes and [for] switching from eMBMS (multicast) to unicast.” Ans. 5. In reply, Appellant argues: This conclusory statement is representative of the overall shortcomings of the Examiner’s rejection. Wang includes the Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 6 words “transferred from multicast to unicast” in paragraph [0014] and further discusses “signal quality” of a target node in paragraph [0055] but simple mention of these broad concepts is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness and, thus, the rejection is made in error. Reply Br. 6–7. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Zhu discloses “[t]he UE switches from reception of the eMBMS broadcast from the first MBSFN area to one of reception through unicast or reception through a second MBSFN area supporting the eMBMS broadcast service, based on the at least one MBSFN threshold and the at least one MBSFN measurement.” Zhu, Abstract. Thus, we determine Zhu describes comparing the measurement to a threshold, and switching from broadcast (multicast) to unicast. Zhu, Abstract. However, the Examiner finds “ZHU does not explicitly teach wherein the . . . second signal received at the mobile terminal from a second transceiver that is not serving the mobile terminal.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis added). Thus, we determine Zhu’s measurement used in the comparison is not from a second transceiver that is not serving the mobile terminal. Wang discloses “a signal quality related to at least one possible target node may be measured.” Wang ¶ 56. Thus, we determine Wang describes receiving a measurement related to a node that is not serving the mobile terminal. Wang ¶ 56. However, Wang’s teaching are related to handoff—not switching from multicast to unicast—as explained by Wang: It should be noted that the exemplifying embodiments described herein are not related to a multicast to unicast transition within Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 7 the same source cell, as in the initial step in the Make Before Break solution described above. The target node should thus be assumed to be associated with a different cell or an at least partly different coverage area than the cell or area in which the eMBMS is provided. Wang ¶ 55. Thus, there is still no teaching in Zhu or Wang of using the signal quality of the target node as part of the procedure of switching communications between the first transceiver and the mobile terminal from multicast to unicast, as recited in the key disputed limitations of claim 1, because Zhu’s measurement used in the comparison is not from a second transceiver that is not serving the mobile terminal, and because Wang is related to handoff and not related to a multicast to unicast transition. The Examiner attempts to address this shortcoming, reasoning that the claimed invention would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of the references. Final Act. 5. However, the Examiner’s reasoning (“to provide seamless transmission from multicast to unicast transmission”) lacks a rational underpinning because neither Zhu nor Wang suggests using the signal quality of the target node as part of the procedure of switching communications between the first transceiver and the mobile terminal from multicast to unicast, as recited in the key disputed limitations of claim 1, would provide seamless transmission from multicast to unicast transition. In short, the Examiner’s reasoning uses improper hindsight based on Appellant’s invention. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, which depends from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 8 for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Appeal 2021-005047 Application 16/310,948 8 The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2–6 over Zhu, Wang, Mochizuki, and Lu The Examiner does not find Lu cures the deficiency of Zhu, Wang, and Mochizuki. See Final Act. 11–16. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7, 8 103 Zhu, Wang, Mochizuki 1, 7, 8 2–6 103 Zhu, Wang, Mochizuki, Lu 2–6 Overall Outcome 1–8 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation