Ex Parte BAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12828022 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
12/828,022 06/30/2010 Derek Hongwei H. BAO 20100106 6051
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
PASIA, REDENTOR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEREK HONGWEI H. BAO, PATRICIA RUEY-JANE CHANG,
STEVEN R. RADOS, SCOTT ANTHONY TOWNLEY,
VIKRAM RAWAT, and MARIA G. LAM
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—8 and 10-20. Claim 9 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to maintaining a base station in a
network, including detecting a malfunction associated with a backhaul link
to the network, identifying neighboring base stations within a transmission
range of the base station, selecting neighboring base stations in response to
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
detecting the malfunction, receiving a signal from user equipment, and
transmitting the signal to the neighboring base stations. (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 6, and 13 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics
1. A method performed by a base station in a network,
the method comprising:
detecting, by the base station, a malfunction associated
with a backhaul link to the network;
identifying, by the base station, a plurality of neighboring
base stations located within a wireless transmission range of the
base station;
selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring base
stations of the identified plurality of neighboring base stations
based on one or more parameters, in response to detecting the
malfunction;
distributing, by the base station, service for a plurality of
user equipment (UE) devices to the selected multiple
neighboring base stations',
receiving, by the base station, a first signal from a UE
device; and
transmitting, by the base station, the first signal to a
particular one of the selected multiple neighboring base stations
based on the service distribution.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the
multiple neighboring base stations based on one or more
parameters includes:
computing a neighbor score for particular ones of the
multiple neighboring base stations based on the one or more
parameters', and
selecting the multiple neighboring base stations based on
the computed neighbor scores.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
2
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
encapsulating packets received from the plurality of UE
devices into relay packets before transmitting the received
packets to particular ones of the selected multiple neighboring
base stations.
A. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sanneck (US 2013/0035033 Al; Feb. 7, 2013) and Nelson
(US 2007/0225028 Al; Sept. 27, 2007).
B. Claims 2, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sanneck, Nelson, and Choi (US 2008/0062911 Al;
Mar. 13, 2008).
C. Claims 3, 6—8, 11, 15—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sanneck, Nelson, and Dinan (US
8,254,943 Bl; Aug. 28, 2012).
D. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sanneck, Nelson, and Moeller (US 2010/0014415 Al; Jan. 21, 2010).
E. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sanneck, Nelson, Dinan, and Pralle (US 2008/0171569 Al; July 17,
2008).
F. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sanneck, Nelson, and Liu (US 2010/0322148 Al; Dec. 23, 2010).
G. Claim 18 stands rejected stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sanneck, Nelson, Dinan, and Choi.
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Sanneck and Nelson
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11—16; see
also Reply Br. 5—9) that the combination of Sanneck and Nelson would not
3
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitations
“selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring base stations of the
identified plurality of neighboring base stations based on one or more
parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction” and “distributing, by
the base station, service for a plurality of user equipment (UE) devices to the
selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
The Examiner found that the base station of Sanneck, having a
defective backhaul link, as illustrated in Figure 3, such that the base station
selects adjacent base stations by signal strength, corresponds to the
limitation “selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring base stations
of the identified plurality of neighboring base stations based on one or more
parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction.” (Ans. 3.) The
Examiner further found that the transmission of a failure message by the
redundancy controller of Nelson to multiple base stations, which provides
service to mobile stations from the failed base station, corresponds to the
limitation “distributing, by the base station, service for a plurality of user
equipment (UE) devices to the selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
(Ans. 5, 30.) The Examiner concluded that “it would have been obvious . . .
to modify the system of Sanneck as taught by Nelson, in order to improve
reliability of wireless communications in a network.” (Ans. 5.) We agree
with the Examiner.
Sanneck relates to a “mobile radio network base stations (BS)
configured to act as relay nodes” (11), such that “the base station [is]
capable of operating as a relay node [and] is able to re-configure itself by
modifying its cell coverage so that it covers the location of the neighbouring
base station” (| 29). In one embodiment, Figure 3 illustrates “the situation
4
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
after switch-over to and enabling of the in-band wireless backhaul relay
link.” (171.) Figure 3 of Sanneck illustrates network 200, including base
station A 216 and base stations B 218, such that backhaul link A experiences
failure 336, which results in re-routing data connection 330 to base station A
216 via base station B 218. (174.) Sanneck explains that pre-configuration
of an in-band wireless backhaul relay link (1 55) includes “identify [ing] a
base station or base stations towards which it is to make a relay-type
connection” (1 57). Sanneck further explains that in the event of a base
station needing to operate in relay mode, cell selection is based upon
“carrying out a cell selection procedure, for example, by selecting a base
station in a cell which indicates to the particular base station that it offers the
best connectivity” which would “typically be the strongest signal as long as
other criteria are met, such as stability of the signal.” (161.) Because
Sanneck explains that data is re-routed to base station B 218 after the
backhaul link A failure, and because pre-configuration includes selection
from other base stations having adequate signal strength, Sanneck teaches
the limitation “selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring base
stations of the identified plurality of neighboring base stations based on one
or more parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction.”
Nelson relates to “wireless communication networks providing
wireless communication with reduced need for redundant equipment at base
stations of the network.” (11.) Nelson explains that “[o]ne means of
improving reliability of a wireless communication network is to provide
backup modules or subsystems at each base station” (| 2) and “the present
disclosure [is] capable of providing wireless communication with mobile
stations in the network, with reduced need for redundant equipment at base
5
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
stations (BSs) of the network” (| 15). Figure 1 of Nelson illustrates wireless
communication network 100 (111) including “BSs [(base stations)] 102A-G
providing wireless communication services to mobile stations within their
corresponding coverage areas, or cells” (115) and redundancy controller 112
coupled to base stations 102A-G (118). Figure 1 of Nelson further
illustrates that mobile stations 110A and 110B are located in cell 104A.
(119.) Nelson provides an example in which BS 102A fails (121), resulting
in redundancy controller 112 transmitting “failure detected” messages to
BSs 102B-G and “the redundancy controller 112... also determine[s] for
each of the BSs 102B-G which of its sectors faces the cell 104A, or a
direction of the BS 102 A” (122). Furthermore, Nelson explains that the
“functionality [of redundancy controller 112] may be provided ... by one or
more of the base stations 102A-G. (118.) In one example, Nelson explains
that in response to the “failure detected” message, BS 102F provides
“wireless service from the BS 102F to MSs in the cell 104A of the failed BS
102A.” (| 26.) Because base station 102F of Nelson, in response to failure
of base station 102 A, provides wireless service to mobile stations previously
serviced by base station 102A, and base station 102 A can also have the
functionality of redundancy controller 112, such that the “failure detected” is
sent to multiple BSs 102B-G, Nelson teaches the limitation “distributing, by
the base station, service for a plurality of user equipment (UE) devices to the
selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the method of Nelson for providing service to mobile stations
associated with a failed base station, with the mobile radio network base
stations network of Sanneck, in which the based stations are also configured
6
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
as relay nodes, would improve Sanneck by providing the advantage of
reducing the need for redundant equipment within the network. See KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has
been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5) that modifying
Sanneck to incorporate the method of Nelson, for providing service to
mobile stations associated with a failed base station, would have been
obvious.
First, Appellants argue that “while paragraph [0018] of NELSON
discloses that the redundancy controller 112 can be provided in one or more
of the base stations, this cannot be in the base station that has failed, because
base station failure in NELSON is a failure of the wireless transmission
capability.” (App. Br. 12.) Similarly, Appellants argue that “the
functionality of redundancy controller 112 of NELSON cannot be provided
by a base station with a malfunctioning backhaul link, because there would
be no way for such a redundancy controller 112 to inform the other base
stations of the failure” (Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted)) and “[w]ere
redundancy controller 112 to be implemented in a base station and the
backhaul link were to fail, redundancy controller 112 would be unable to
inform the other base stations of the failure” {id. at 6—7). However, Nelson
explains that the “functionality [of redundancy controller 112] may be
provided ... by one or more of the base stations 102A-G,” which is
inclusive of failed base station 102A. (| 18.) Appellants have not provided
any persuasive arguments or evidence to support the argument that “[w]ere
7
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
redundancy controller 112 to be implemented in a base station and the
backhaul link were to fail, redundancy controller 112 would be unable to
inform the other base stations of the failure.” (Reply Br. 6—7.) Arguments
of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence.
See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Second, Appellants argue
NELSON does not disclose or suggest anywhere that a base
station that has experienced a malfunction in the backhaul link to
the network selects multiple neighboring base stations based on
one or more parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction
and distributes service for a plurality of UE devices to the
selected multiple neighboring base stations, as required by
claim 1
and “[t]he term ‘backhaul’ does not appear anywhere in the disclosure of
NELSON.” (App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted).) However, the Examiner
cited to Sanneck, rather than Nelson, for teaching the limitation “selecting,
by the base station, multiple neighboring base stations of the identified
plurality of neighboring base stations based on one or more parameters, in
response to detecting the malfunction.” (Ans. 3.)
Third, Appellants argue that “these sections of NELSON do not
disclose or suggest distributing service for a plurality of UE devices to the
selected multiple neighboring base stations” because “redundancy controller
112 sends a message to adjacent base stations informing them of a failed
base station” and “one of the adjacent base stations makes communication
capacity available to communicate with UE devices of the failed base
station.” (App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 7—8.)
However, because Nelson explains that the “failure detected” message is
sent to multiple base stations 102B-G (118) and that in one example, base
8
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
station 102F provides wireless service to mobile stations in the cell 104A of
failed base station 102A (| 26), Nelson suggests that multiple BS 102B-G
can also provide wireless service to cell 104A.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the “Examiner’s reasons for combining
SANNECK and NELSON with respect to claim 1 do not satisfy the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103” because “[t]he Examiner’s allegation [to
improve reliability of wireless communications in a network] is merely a
conclusory statement providing an alleged benefit of the combination.”
(App. Br. 14.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, as discussed previously,
the combination of Sanneck and Nelson is based on the improvement of a
similar device in the same way as in the prior art. In particular, Nelson
explains that BS 102F provides “wireless service from the BS 102F to MSs
in the cell 104A of the failed BS 102 A,” and accordingly, improves the
reliability of the network. (| 26.)
Fifth, Appellants argue that “NELSON teaches away from the features
of claim 1, because NELSON discloses that UEs from a failed base station
start to communicate with an adjacent base station directly, without being
relayed through the failed base station.” (App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).)
Again, the Examiner cited to Sanneck, rather than Nelson, for teaching the
limitation “selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring base stations
of the identified plurality of neighboring base stations based on one or more
parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction.” (Ans. 3.)
Last, Appellants argue that
the Examiner has not provided a rationale for why one of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the system
of SANNECK with the redundancy controller of NELSON, since
SANNECK deals with a relay-type connection in response to a
9
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
backhaul link failure and NELSON discloses handing UEs over
to adjacent base stations, which would negate any benefit of the
relay-type connection of SANNECK.
(App. Br. 16.) However, Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement
with insufficient evidence or an explanation as to why any benefits of the
relay-type connection of Sanneck would be negated. Again, arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See,
e.g., Huang, 100 F.3d at 139-40.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sanneck
and Nelson would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitations “selecting, by the base station, multiple neighboring
base stations of the identified plurality of neighboring base stations based on
one or more parameters, in response to detecting the malfunction” and
“distributing, by the base station, service for a plurality of user equipment
(UE) devices to the selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 4 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
§ 103(a) Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, and Choi
Claim 2
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 2 separately (App. Br. 17), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “CHOI does
10
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK and NELSON set forth above
with respect to claim 1.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claims 2 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
Claims 13 and 14
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18; see also
Reply Br. 10) that the combination of Sanneck, Nelson, and Choi would not
have rendered obvious dependent claim 13, which includes the limitation
“encapsulating packets received from the plurality of UE devices into relay
packets before transmitting the received packets to particular ones of the
selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
The Examiner found that the serving base station of Choi, which
receives a handoff request message and transmits a handoff request message
to a target base station, corresponds to the limitation “encapsulating packets
received from the plurality of UE devices into relay packets before
transmitting the received packets to particular ones of the selected multiple
neighboring base stations.” (Ans. 7—8, 37.) In particular, the Examiner
found that “[t]he generation of the new message must include an implicit
step of encapsulating information (i.e. as well as headers) in order to
properly route the message to the intended destination.” (Ans. 37.) We do
not agree.
Choi relates to a “buffering packets in a multi-hop relay system.”
(13.) Choi explains that “upon receipt of the handoff accept message from
the target BS [(Base Station)], the serving BS transmits a handoff accept
11
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
message to the MS [(Mobile Station)]. . . and transmits session information
about the MS to the target BS.” (1 66.)
Although the Examiner cited to receiving the “handoff accept
message” of Choi and transmitting the “handoff accept message” of Choi,
the Examiner has not established that the handoff accept message of Choi
necessarily contains encapsulating information. “Inherency . . . may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” See In
re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Therefore, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
“generating the new handoff message could include extracting the received
handoff message from a packet and inserting it into a new packet that does
not include headers of the received handoff message” and “[s]ince CHOI
does not disclose or suggest that the received handoff accept/reject message
is encapsulated, CHOI does not disclose or suggest encapsulating received
packets into relay packets.” (App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 10.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 14 depend from claim 13. We do not
sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons discussed with respect to dependent claim 13.
§ 103(a) Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, and Dinan
Claim 3
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 3 separately (App. Br. 20-22), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim
12
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
are separately patentable. Instead of presenting arguments pointing out with
particularity how the limitation “wherein the base station includes one or
more cells, and wherein the one or more parameters include an amount of
UE traffic associated with a particular one of the one or more cells” is
distinguishable over Dinan, Appellants merely provide a conclusory
statement that Dinan does not teach the features of this dependent claim. In
particular, Appellants argue that “upload or download capacity [of DINAN]
does not correspond to UE traffic, because capacity refers to a percentage or
portion of available resources, while UE traffic refers to an absolute amount
of traffic being handled by a cell of the base station” and thus, “DINAN
do[es] not disclose or suggest that the base station includes one or more
cells, and wherein the one or more parameters include an amount of UE
traffic associated with a particular one of the one or more cells, as recited in
claim 3.” (Id. at 21.) Therefore, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to this claim. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule
41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere
recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding
elements were not found in the prior art.”). Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
Claims 6—8
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 23; see also
Reply Br. 12—13) that the combination of Sanneck, Nelson, and Dinan
would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 6, which includes the
limitations “computing a neighbor score for particular ones of the multiple
13
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
neighboring base stations based on the one or more parameters” and
“selecting the multiple neighboring base stations based on the computed
neighbor scores.”
The Examiner found that the serving base station of Dinan, which
ranks the backhaul recovery responses, correspond to the limitations
“computing a neighbor score for particular ones of the multiple neighboring
base stations based on the one or more parameters” and “selecting the
multiple neighboring base stations based on the computed neighbor scores.”
(Ans. 10, 40.) We do not agree.
Dinan relates to “backhaul transport recovery,” in particular
“broadcasting a backhaul recovery request, and receiving backhaul recovery
responses from at least one wireless device.” (Abstract.) Figure 1 of Dinan
illustrates communication system 100 configured for backhaul transport
recovery, including wireless device 102, target base station 110, and serving
base station 104, such that wireless device 102 is coupled with target base
station 110 through link 116. (Col. 2,11. 46—53.) Figure 1 of Dinan further
illustrates that “when backhaul link 114 fails, a backhaul recovery path is
created through wireless device 102, target base station 110, and backhaul
link 118.” (Col. 3,11. 3,11. 29—32.) Dinan explains that “a backhaul
recovery response may include an identification of the target base station,
available target base station upload capacity, available target base station
download capacity and air interface quality indicator between the wireless
device and the two base stations.” (Col. 3,11. 46—50.) Dinan further
explains that “[i]n response to this backhaul recovery message, serving base
station 104 receives backhaul recovery responses from at least one wireless
device” and “[sjerving base station 104 ranks the backhaul recovery
14
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
responses, producing a ranked list of potential wireless recovery devices.”
(Col. 5,11. 6—12 (emphases omitted).)
Although the Examiner cited to the backhaul recovery responses of
Dinan, the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding
that Dinan teaches the limitation “computing a neighbor score for particular
ones of the multiple neighboring base stations based on the one or more
parameters” and “selecting the multiple neighboring base stations based on
the computed neighbor scores.” In particular, Dinan explains that “[sjerving
base station 104 ranks the backhaul recovery responses, producing a ranked
list of potential wireless recovery devices” (col. 5,11. 10—12), rather than
ranking and selecting a base station. On this record, we do not agree with
the Examiner that Dinan teaches the limitations “computing a neighbor score
for particular ones of the multiple neighboring base stations based on the one
or more parameters” and “selecting the multiple neighboring base stations
based on the computed neighbor scores.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “[i]t
appears the Examiner relies on the ranking of the backhaul recovery
messages as allegedly corresponding to the neighbor scores computed for
neighboring base stations” but “the ranking is for backhaul recovery
messages received from wireless devices 102 of DINAN, which are UEs and
not base stations.” (App. Br. 23; see also Reply Br. 12—13.)
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 7 and 8 depend from dependent claim 6. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons discussed with respect to claim 6.
15
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
Claim 11
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 26; see also
Reply Br. 13) that the combination of Sanneck, Nelson, and Dinan would
not have rendered obvious dependent claim 11, which includes the limitation
“allocating bandwidth for a cell associated with one of the selected multiple
neighboring base stations.”
The Examiner found that the base station of Sanneck, which includes
a mobile station in a cell, corresponds to the limitation “base station includes
one or more cells.” (Ans. 11,41.) The Examiner further found that the
wireless device of Dinan, which is in the range of three base stations, as
illustrated in Figure 4C, corresponds to the limitation “allocating bandwidth
. . . with one of the selected multiple neighboring base stations.” (Ans. 11—
12, 41.) We agree with the Examiner.
Figure 2 of Sanneck illustrates that “BS A 216 provides radio access
to mobile terminals in a cell 220 and BS B 218 provides radio access to
mobile terminals in a cell 222.” (| 7.) Thus, because Sanneck explains that
the base station provides radio access to mobile terminals in a cell, Sanneck
teaches the limitation “base station includes one or more cells.” Figure 4C
of Dinan illustrates that wireless device 432 receives backhaul recovery
channels, represented by dash lines, from base stations 406, 410, and 412.
(Col. 7,11. 10-19.) Dinan explains that “[t]he available upload and
download capacities may be limited by the bandwidth of the wireless device
and the target base station.” (Col. 2,11. 53—55.) Because Figure 4C of
Dinan illustrates that wireless device 432, having a bandwidth, is distributed
among bases stations 406, 410, and 412, Dinan teaches the limitation
“allocating bandwidth . . . with one of the selected multiple neighboring base
16
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
stations.” Accordingly, the combination of Sanneck, Nelson, and Dinan,
teaches the limitation “allocating bandwidth for a cell associated with one of
the selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
Appellants argue that “DINAN do[es] not disclose or suggest
allocating bandwidth for a cell of a base station” and “does not even mention
the word ‘cell’ anywhere.” (App. Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 13.) However,
the Examiner cited to Sanneck, rather than Dinan, for teaching the limitation
“base station includes one or more cells.” (Ans. 11,41.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sanneck,
Nelson, and Dinan would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitations “allocating bandwidth for a cell associated with one
of the selected multiple neighboring base stations.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 15—17, 19, and 20
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of claims 15—17,
19, and 20 separately (App. Br. 27—28), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these claims are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “DINAN does
not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK and NELSON with respect to
claim 15” and “[cjlaims 16, 17, and 19 depend from claim 15.” (Id. at 27.)
Similarly, Appellants argue that “[f]or reasons similar to those discussed
above with respect to the claim 1, the combination of SANNECK and
NELSON does not disclose or suggest each of the features of claim 20” (id.
at 27—28) and “DINAN does not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK
17
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
and NELSON with respect to claim 20” (id. at 28). We are not persuaded by
these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, and Moeller
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 5 separately (App. Br. 28), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “MOELLER
does not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK and NELSON set forth
above with respect to claim 1.” (Id. ) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which
claim 5 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, Dinan, and Pralle
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 10 separately (App. Br. 28—29), the arguments presented do not point
out with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim
are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “DINAN
and PRALLE do not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK and
NELSON set forth above with respect to claim 1.” (Id.) We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
18
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
§103 Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, and Liu
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 12 separately (App. Br. 29), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “LIU does not
overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK and NELSON set forth above with
respect to claim 1(Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 12 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Sanneck, Nelson, Dinan, and Choi
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 18 separately (App. Br. 29), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that “CHOI does
not overcome the deficiencies of SANNECK, NELSON, and DINAN set
forth above with respect to claim 15.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 15, from which
claim 18 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5 and 10—12, and 15—20
is affirmed.
19
Appeal 2016-001191
Application 12/828,022
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6—8, 13, and 14 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
20