10496511 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

Ex Parte Achard

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 27, 2016

10496511 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/496,511 05/21/2004 59978 7590 01/29/2016 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jacques Achard 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Q81463 8441 EXAMINER KARIKARI, KW AS! ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01129/2016 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): patent@csglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACQUES ACHARD Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-25, which are all claims pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is EVOLIUM S.A.S. App. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed May 17, 2013 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed September 30, 2013 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed December 11, 2012 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed May 21, 2004 ("Spec."). Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention relates to a cell changing method for a packet- mode cellular mobile radio system. Spec 2: 15-25, Abstract. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant's invention as reproduced below: 1. A cell changing method for a cellular mobile radio system, the method comprising: signaling by a network to a mobile station when said mobile station is in an old cell, information relating to resources allocated to said mobile station in a new cell and information intended to enable said mobile station to determine a timing advance to be applied by said mobile station in the new cell, wherein the cellular mobile radio system is a packet- mode cellular mobile radio system. App. Br. 17 (Claims Appendix) (disputed limitation in emphasis). Dupuy Rantalainen Evidence Considered us 5,711,003 US 6,667,963 Bl Examiner's Rejections Jan.20, 1998 Dec. 23, 2003 (1) Claims 1, 2, 4--15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( e) as being anticipated by Rantalainen. Final Act. 3-10. (2) Claims 16-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rantalainen and Dupuy. Final Act. 10-15. 2 Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 ANALYSIS Â§ 102(e) Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-15, 24, and 25 based on Rantalainen Independent claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 14 each recite a method and a corresponding mobile station of a cellular mobile radio system including several limitations and a "wherein" clause, i.e.: "wherein the cellular mobile radio system is a packet-mode cellular mobile radio system." Likewise, independent claims 8, 10, and 12 each recite cellular mobile network equipment including similar limitations and a "wherein" clause, i.e.: "wherein the cellular mobile network equipment is packet- mode cellular mobile network equipment." Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding regarding the "wherein" clause of these claims. In particular, Appellant acknowledges Rantalainen discloses a cellular radio network in the form of a GSM network, shown in Figure 2, equipped with several known components including Base Transceiver Stations (BTS) 1---6, Base Station Controllers (BSC) 7-8 each BSC controlling a subset of BTSs, a Mobile Switching Centre (MSC) 9 linked to the two BSCs 7-8, and a Short Message Service-Service Centre (SMS-SC) 10 to provide text message (data) service separately from voice service of the GSM cellular radio network. App. Br. 11; see also Rantalainen 3:35-52, 5:58---67, Fig. 2. Appellant even acknowledges Rantalainen teaches: As an alternative to the use of SMS for sending position data between the serving BTS 6 and the MS 16, data may be transmitted for example on a packet data channel (e.g. in a 3 Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 General Packet Radio Service GPRS) or using an Unstructured Supplementary Data service (USSD). Id. at 12 (citing Rantalaine 6:7-11) (emphasis added). Nevertheless, Appellant argues Rantalainen only discloses a circuit- mode system [for cellular (voice) communication]. Id. at 11. According to Appellant, "[t]he portion of Rantalainen cited in the rejection describes a circuit-mode system (i.e., GSM) employing a packet-mode technique. Employing a packet-mode technique in the circuit- mode system of Rantalainen does not devolve the circuit-mode (i.e .. GSM) system of Rantalainen into a packet-mode (i.e .. GPRS) system. For example, Rantalainen still employs a circuit-mode system configuration of particular elements (e.g., MS, BTS, BSC, etc.) in particular configurations, with no teaching or suggestion that the circuit-mode system is somehow transformed into a packet-mode system." Id. at 13 (emphasis added). We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3---6. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example, as correctly explained by the Examiner, GSM system was initially designed as a circuit-mode/switched system for telephone calls via reserved channels, whilst packet- mode/switch system was designed to transmit data such as video in a form [sic] packets via shared channels in a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) system. Ans. 4. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, the General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is an integrated part of the GSM cellular network as disclosed by Rantalainen to allow the GSM cellular network to also transmit IP data 4 Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 packets to external networks such as the Internet. As such, the structure of the GSM network, as shown in Figure 2, is the same for both: (1) circuit- switched (CS) communication (used for phone calls) and (2) packet- switched (GPRS PS) communication (used for data transmission). As correctly recognized by the Examiner, "Rantalainen teaches a GSM system that includes both circuit-mode and packet-mode cellular system for calls and data transmissions." Ans. 5 (citing Rantalainen 3:35--40, 558---6:11) (emphasis in original). For the reasons set forth above and in the absence of Appellant's rebuttal to the Examiner's findings and explanations, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 and their respective dependent claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 24, and 25, which Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 14. Â§ 103 (a) Rejection of Claims 16-2 3 based on Rantalainen and Dupuy With respect to dependent claims 16-18, Appellant presents no separate patentability arguments. Id. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 16-18. With respect to independent claim 19, Appellant reiterates the same arguments presented against claim 1. Id. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 19 and its dependent claims 20-23. 5 Appeal2014-002462 Application 10/496,511 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) andÂ§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--25. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED Klh 6