Ex Parte Balachandran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201713106825 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2017) 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. 13/106,825 05/12/2011 Krishna Balachandran 809678 6148 30594 7590 06/09/2017 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/09/2017 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com pshaddin@hdp.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISHNA BALACHANDRAN, JOSEPH H. KANG, KEMAL M. KARAKAYALI, and KIRAN M. REGE Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—21. App. Br. 1, 15—20.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm. The Invention Appellants invented methods that purportedly improve mobile communications in heterogeneous networks. Abstract. According to 1 All references to the Appeal Brief refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed on July 30, 2015. Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Appellants, an anchor-cell transceiver node is capable of performing the following two functions: (1) communicating with a mobile device via a primary link; and (2) conveying information to the mobile device by routing at least a portion of the information to the mobile device via a secondary-cell transceiver node. Id. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 7, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2—6 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 1; claims 8—14 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 7; and claims 16—21 directly or indirectly depend from independent claim 15. Independent claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of wireless communication comprising: communicating, by an anchor-cell transceiver node with a mobile device, via a primary link; conveying, by the anchor-cell transceiver node, information for the mobile device to the mobile device, wherein conveying the information to the mobile device comprises distributing portions of the information to either the primary link or a secondary link of a secondary-cell transceiver node to produce a primary link portion and a secondary link portion, wherein both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device; transmitting, by the anchor-cell transceiver node, the primary link portion of the information to the mobile device via the primary link; routing, by the anchor-cell transceiver node, the secondary link portion of the information to the mobile device via the secondary-cell transceiver node, wherein the anchor-cell transceiver node is a wireless transceiver node and the secondary-cell transceiver node is a wireless transceiver node. App. Br. 15. 2 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Prior Art Relied Upon Inventor2 I'.S. Patent No. or I'.S. Patent App. Pub. No. Issuance or Publication Date Kuehnel 5,907,542 May 25, 1999 Itoh 2003/0114114 A1 June 19, 2003 Pecen 2005/0221831 A1 Oct. 6, 2005 Pan 2008/0039144 A1 Feb. 14, 2008 Gallagher 2008/0123596 A1 May 29, 2008 Akman 2010/0075678 A1 Mar. 25, 2010 Non-Patent Literature_________________________________________________ Timer based de-activation of secondary carrier in Dual Band 4C-HSDPA, Qualcomm, Inc. (Apr. 16, 2010) (“Qualcomm”)___________________________ Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher and Pan. Final Act. 3—8.3 Claims 2, 9, and 18 were rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Qualcomm. Id. at 8—9. Claims 3,10, and 19 were rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, Qualcomm, and Kuehnel. Id. at 9. Claims 4, 11, and 20 were rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Pecen. Id. at 10. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 were rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Akman. Id. at 11. 2 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor. 3 All references to the Final Action refer to the Final Action entered on September 23, 2014. 3 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Claim 17 was rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Itoh. Id. at 12. Claim 21 was rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Kuehnel. Id. at 12—13. Examiner’s Findings The Examiner finds that Gallagher teaches all the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 15, except Gallagher does not disclose expressly “the anchor-cell transceiver node is a wireless transceiver node.” Final Act. 3—7 (citing Gallagher H 123, 221, 361—370, Fig. 40). The Examiner turns to Pan’s mobile switching center (“MSC”), which includes a wireless communication interface, to teach this feature. Id. at 5—7 (citing Pan 176). Of particular importance to this case, the Examiner finds Gallagher discloses that, during a handover scenario, traffic connections or links exist concurrently between the user equipment (“UE”) and the MSC associated with the GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (“GERAN”), and the UE and the general access network controller (“GANC”) associated with a general access network (“GAN”). Id. at 4, 6—7 (citing Gallagher 1361, 366—370). According to the Examiner, these cited disclosures in Gallagher teach “both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15. Id. Appellants ’ Contentions Appellants contend that Gallagher only discloses that the UE may be configured to operate in one of two modes (i.e., either GERAN/Universal Mobile Telecommunication System Terrestrial Radio Access Network or GAN) at any given time and, therefore, the UE only has a single active link 4 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 with the GANC associated with the GAN or the base station controller (“BSC”) associated with the GERAN. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that, although Gallagher’s UE may switch between the two modes, it does not operate actively in both modes. Id. According to Appellants, Gallagher’s UE does not switch from GERAN to GAN until the handover process is completed and, as a result, the UE cannot maintain simultaneous active links with the GERAN or GAN at any given time. Id. (citing Gallagher 1366); see also Reply Br. 3^4 (arguing that Gallagher does not disclose partitioning information into first and second portions that are communicated to and from the UED via simultaneously active GERAN and GAN links). Appellants, therefore, assert that Gallagher does not teach “both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. Appellants further contend that, because Gallagher does not maintain simultaneous active links between the UE and GERAN, and the UE and GAN, Gallagher cannot teach the “transmitting” and “routing” steps recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 12—13. Appellants rely upon the same arguments presented against the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 7 and 15. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4—5. II. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in determining whether the combined teachings of Gallagher and Pan account for the following limitations recited in independent claim 1: 5 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 (a) “both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device”; (b) “transmitting, by the anchor-cell transceiver node, the primary link portion of the information to the mobile device via the primary link” (“the ‘transmitting’ step”); (c) “routing, by the anchor-cell transceiver node, the secondary link portion of the information to the mobile device via the secondary-cell transceiver node, wherein the anchor-cell transceiver node is a wireless transceiver node and the secondary-cell transceiver node is a wireless transceiver node” (“the ‘routing’ step”)? III. ANALYSIS § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Gallagher and Pan Claims 1, 7, and 15 We do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 which recites, amongst other things, the limitations reproduced above. We also do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 7 and 15. The Examiner takes the position that Gallagher discloses a soft handover scenario where an ongoing call or data session for the UE is passed from the GERAN to GAN, in which the GERAN link is maintained with UE until bi-directional voice traffic is flowing to the UE via the GAN. Ans. 5—6 (citing Gallagher || 360-371, Fig. 40); see also Ans. 10-11 (arguing the same). In particular, the Examiner finds that the GERAN link and the GAN link are simultaneously active links during handover until the core network tears down the GERAN link. Id. at 8. The Examiner, therefore, finds that 6 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Gallagher teaches “both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device,” as claimed. Id. As an initial matter, the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that Gallagher teaches maintaining simultaneous active links between the UE and GERAN, and the UE and GAN. See Final Act. 4, 6—7; Ans. 5—6, 8, 10-11. Indeed, during the GERAN to GAN handover scenario discussed above, Gallagher discloses that the procedures invoked assume the following: (1) “the UE is on an active call on the GERAN”; and (2) “the UE has successfully registered with a GANC [associated with the GAN], allowing the UE to obtain GAN system information.” Gallagher 1361. Gallagher further discloses that, only after “[b]i-directional voice traffic is . . . flowing between the UE [] and MSC [] via GANC [associated with the GAN]” does the core network tear down the link to the GERAN. Id. 11370-71. Based on the two assumptions identified above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Gallagher maintains two active links during the GERAN to GAN handover scenario —one between the UE and GERAN (i.e., a primary link) and one between the UE and GAN (i.e., a secondary link)—because bi-directional voice traffic is flowing to the UE via the GAN link and also capable of flowing between the UE via the GERAN link (i.e., the UE maintains its active call status with the GERAN) until the core network tears down the GERAN link. To the extent Appellants argue that independent claim 1 requires partitioning information into first and second portions and then simultaneously communicating these portions to and from the UE over both active GERAN and GAN links, we are not persuaded. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 3^4. The plain language of independent claim 1 merely requires 7 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 “distributing portions of the information to either the primary link or a secondary link . . . wherein both the primary link and the secondary link are concurrently active wireless links with the mobile device.” App. Br. 15 (emphases added). In other words, a prior art reference satisfies the aforementioned limitation of independent claim 1 if it distributes information via a primary or secondary link—not via both links simultaneously—and both the primary and secondary links are active links with a mobile device at the same time. As we explain above, Gallagher satisfies this limitation because it teaches that bi-directional voice traffic is flowing between the UE via the GAN link (i.e., secondary link) even though such information also is capable of flowing between the UE via the GERAN link (i.e., primary link) until the core network tears down the GERAN link. Gallagher H 361-371, Fig. 40. Appellants’ argument that Gallagher does not teach the “transmitting” and “routing” steps recited in independent claim 1 is predicated on its argument that Gallagher does not maintain simultaneous active links between the UE and GERAN, and the UE and the GAN. See App. Br. 12— 13. As we explain above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gallagher does not maintain simultaneous active links between the UE and GERAN, and the UE and the GAN. Instead, we are persuaded that the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the combined teachings of Gallagher and Pan account for the “transmitting” and “routing” steps recited in independent claim 1. See Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 8— 9, 13. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combined teachings of Gallagher and Pan render the subject matter of independent claims 1, 7, and 15 obvious. 8 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 Claims 8, 12, and 16 Appellants do not provide separate and distinct patentability arguments with respect to dependent claims 8, 12, and 16. We, therefore, group these dependent claims with their underlying base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 8, 12, and 16 fall with independent claims 1, 7, and 15, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Remaining § 103(a) Rejections Claims 2—6, 9—11, 13, 14, and 17—21 Appellants do not provide separate and distinct patentability arguments with respect to dependent claims 2—6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17—21. We, therefore, group these dependent claims with their underlying base claims. Consequently, dependent claims 2—6, 9-11, 13, 14, and 17—21 fall with independent claims 1, 7, and 15, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). IV. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Examiner has not erred in rejecting (1) claims 1, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher and Pan; (2) claims 2, 9, and 18 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Qualcomm; (3) claims 3,10, and 19 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, Qualcomm, and Kuehnel; (4) claims 4, 11, and 20 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Pecen; (5) claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Akman; (6) claim 17 under § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Itoh; and (7) claim under 9 Appeal 2016-003885 Application 13/106,825 § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Gallagher, Pan, and Kuehnel. V. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation