Drevon, Nicolas et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2020

13265633 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 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.
13/265,633 02/17/2012 Nicolas Drevon LUTZ 201349US01 3076
48116 7590 03/24/2020
FAY SHARPE/NOKIA
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
EXAMINER
MANOHARAN, MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2020 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
docketing@faysharpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICOLAS DREVON, LAURENT THIEBAUT, and
ANDREW BENNETT
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, 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 and 3–29. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alcatel
Lucent. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “mobile communication networks and
systems.” Spec. 1: 8–9. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for the reduction of flow break in Single
Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC) mobility for a User
Equipment (UE), SRVCC mobility including Hand-Over (HO)
execution procedure and Voice Call Continuity (VCC)
procedure, said method comprising:
- delaying HO execution at the UE, after reception by the
UE of a HO command, said delaying enabling to synchronize
changing a path to said UE during said HO execution procedure
and changing a path to a remote UE during said VCC
procedure.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Cao US 2004/0219921 A1 Nov. 4, 2004
Vaittinen US 2006/0246906 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Bennett US 2008/0267128 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
Park US 2008/0287133 A1 Nov. 20, 2008
Stegall US 2014/0235251 A1 Aug. 21, 2014
Xie US 9,603,183 B2 Mar. 21, 2017
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 5–13, 15, 18, and 21–29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bennett, Stegall, and Vaittinen. Final Act.
2–9.
Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and Xie. Final Act. 10–
12.
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
3
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and Park. Final Act. 12.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and Cao. Final Act. 13.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5–13, 15, 18, and 21–29 over
Bennett, Stegall, and Vaittinen
The Examiner finds Bennett, Stegall, and Vaittinen teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2–4; see also Ans. 3–4.
In particular, the Examiner finds Bennett teaches “HO execution at
the UE, to coordinate HO execution procedure and VCC procedure.” Final
Act. 2 (citing Bennett, Claim 1).
In particular, the Examiner finds Stegall teaches “delaying HO
execution, said delaying enabling to synchronize changing a path to said UE
during said HO execution procedure and changing a path to a remote UE
during said VCC procedure.” Final Act. 3 (citing Stegall ¶¶ 20–22). The
Examiner reasons
it would [have been] obvious to [one] of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to delay HO execution[,] said
delaying enabling to synchronize changing a path to said UE
during said HO execution procedure and changing a path to a
remote UE during said VCC procedure . . . in order to have voice
call continuity.
Final Act. 3.
Further, the Examiner finds Vaittinen teaches “delaying HO execution
at the UE, after reception by the UE of a HO command.” Final Act. 3 (citing
Vaittinen ¶ 74). The Examiner reasons “it would [have been] obvious to one
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
4
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to delay HO execution at
the UE, after reception by the UE of a HO command in order to have . . .
efficient way of performing UE controlled handover.” Final Act. 3–4.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i. Stegall teaches “the delay is introduced by the MSC/VLR, not
by a UE.” Appeal Br. 5 (citing Stegall ¶¶ 20–22); see also Reply Br. 3–4.
ii. “Vaittinen does not cure the deficiencies of Stegall.” Appeal Br.
6 (citing Vaittinen ¶ 74).
[A]waiting the receipt of another handover message, while the
given starting time is running until it is moved to the allocated
resources in the target cell (as in Vaittinen paragraph 0074) does
not suggest delaying after reception by the UE of a HO command
to synchronize changing a path to said UE during said HO
execution procedure and changing a path to a remote UE during
said VCC procedure (as in claim 1). For example, paragraph
0074 of Vaittinen discloses “another handover message;” in
contrast, in claim 1 there is a (single) HO command. As another
example, Vaittinen (paragraph 0066) discloses “synchronization
between RR and RLC/MAC layers required for performing a
combined procedure in case of two separate messages,” namely
“HANDOVER COMMAND and PS HANDOVER
COMMAND messages” (e.g. paragraph 0062 of Vaittinen); in
contrast, claim 1 recites “to synchronize changing a path to said
UE during said HO execution procedure and changing a path to
a remote UE during said VCC procedure.”
Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellant’s argument i, this argument does not show any
error because the Examiner finds Vaittinen—not Stegall— teaches “delaying
HO execution at the UE, after reception by the UE of a HO command.”
Final Act. 3 (citing Vaittinen ¶ 74).
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
5
Regarding Appellant’s argument ii, this argument also does not show
any error. Vaittinen discloses “[a]t the expiry of the starting time and if the
MS has not received another handover message, it acts upon the information
given in the first handover message.” Vaittinen ¶ 74. Appellant’s argument
focuses on receiving another handover message; however, in the event that
another handover message is not received, Vaittinen describes “delaying HO
execution at the UE, after reception by the UE of a HO command” as recited
in claim 1. See Vaittinen ¶ 74. The Examiner finds Bennett and Stegall teach
the remaining recitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Bennett, Claim 1,
Stegall ¶¶ 20–22). The Examiner articulates a reason to combine the
teaching of Vaittinen with the teachings of Bennett and Stegall that is
rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Final Act. 3–4 (“in order to have efficient way of performing UE controlled
handover”); see also Vaittinen ¶ 74. Appellant has not presented any
particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 5–13, 15, 18, 21–29, which are
not separately argued with particularity.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 over Bennett,
Stegall, Vaittinen, and Xie
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 14, 16, 17,
and 19. See Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 16, 17,
and 19.

Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
6
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 4 over Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and
Park
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 4. See
Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 4.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 20 over Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and
Cao
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 and further recites “a User Equipment
UE signalling to the network its capability to take into account delay
information for HO execution signaled by the network.” The Examiner finds
Bennett, Stegall, Vaittinen, and Cao teach all limitations of claim 20. Final
Act. 13. In particular, the Examiner finds Cao teaches the further recited
subject matter of claim 20. Final Act. 13 (citing Cao ¶ 6); see also Ans. 5
(citing Cao ¶¶ 6, 42). The Examiner reasons
it would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of invention to use the method comprising: a User
Equipment UE signaling to the network its capability to take into
account delay information for Hand-Over execution signaled by
the network in order to have efficient inter-system handover.
Final Act. 13.
Appellant presents the following principal argument: “Cao discloses
obtaining a UE’s capacity to hand over between different radio access
technologies” and “does not suggest a UE signalling to the network its
capability to take into account delay information for HO execution signaled
by the network.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4–6.
Cao discloses “[t]he timer is modified based upon whether the mobile
user terminal is capable of handing over from UMTS to GPRS (i.e[.,] inter
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
7
RAT capability) and whether the mobile user terminal is in a UMTS-GPRS
handover region.” Cao ¶ 6. Cao further discloses “[t]he UTRAN network 11
obtains the mobile user terminal’s inter radio access technology (inter RAT)
capability information from the mobile user terminal’s initial connection
setup request.” Cao ¶ 42.
We do not see any error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant’s arguments do not show any error in the Examiner’s
findings because the further recited subject matter is taught by the combined
teachings of the references. Cao teaches the concept of (claim 20) (emphasis
added) “a User Equipment UE signalling to the network its capability.” See
Cao ¶¶ 6, 42. When this teaching from Cao is combined with the teachings
of the other prior art references discussed above when addressing claim 1,
the combined teachings suggest “a User Equipment UE signalling to the
network its capability to take into account delay information for HO
execution signaled by the network” as recited in claim 20. The Examiner
articulates a reason to combine the teaching of Cao with the teachings of
Bennett, Stegall, and Vaittinen that is rational on its face and supported by
evidence drawn from the record. See Final Act. 13 (“in order to have
efficient inter-system handover”); see also Cao ¶¶ 6, 42. Appellant has not
presented any particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.
Appeal 2019-001661
Application 13/265,633
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–13,
15, 18, 21–
29
103(a) Bennett, Stegall,
Vaittinen
1, 3, 5–13,
15, 18, 21–
29

14, 16, 17,
19
103(a) Bennett, Stegall,
Vaittinen, Xie
14, 16, 17,
19

4 103(a) Bennett, Stegall,
Vaittinen, Park
4
20 103(a) Bennett, Stegall,
Vaittinen, Cao
20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–29

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