Ex Parte Bergman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

12992484 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 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.
12/992,484 11/12/2010 Johan Bergman P26675-US2 7686
27045 7590 09/20/2017
F.RTrSSON TNC
EXAMINER
6300 LEGACY DRIVE TORRES, MARCOS L
M/SEVR 1-C-ll
PLANO, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
michelle. sanderson @ eric sson .com
pam. ewing @ ericsson. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN BERGMAN and FREDRIK GUNNARS SON
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
and JOHN KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—33 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to “controlling carrier reselection in a
cellular communications system.” Specification 1.
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for use in a cellular radio communication system
where a mobile radio terminal is served by a serving radio
network controller and a serving base station associated with a
serving cell using a first uplink carrier frequency, the method
comprising:
the serving base station deciding that a future
communication with the mobile radio terminal should use a
second different uplink carrier frequency selected by the
serving base station;
the serving base station generating a carrier reallocation
signal that indicates that the future communication with the
mobile radio terminal is to be conducted using the selected
second uplink carrier frequency, and
the serving base station sending the carrier reallocation
signal to the serving radio network controller to request a
change from the first uplink carrier frequency to the second
uplink carrier frequency,
wherein the radio network controller and the serving base
station are of the cellular radio communication system, and
wherein the carrier reallocation signal includes a time
associated with the carrier reallocation to synchronize an inter-
frequency handover for other base stations having a cell in an
active set of cells associated with the mobile radio terminal.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—6, 8—14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Derakhshan (US Patent Application Publication
2006/0142032 Al; published June 29, 2006) and Williams (US Patent
2
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
Application Publication 2012/0264420 Al; published October 18, 2012).1
Final Rejection 6—11.
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Derakhshan, Williams and Nakamata (US Patent
Application Publication 2007/0049277 Al; published March 1, 2007). Final
Rejection 11.
Claims 13 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Derakhshan, Williams and Yang (US Patent 8,060,098B2;
issued November 15, 2011). Final Rejection 11—12.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 23, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
May 24, 2016), the Final Rejection (mailed May 19, 2015) and the Answer
(mailed March 24, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellants contend “the Final Office Action acknowledges that the
Radio Link Reconfiguration Commit message of Derakhshan is, in fact, not
sent from a serving base station to an RNC [Radio Network Controller], as
claimed, but is sent in the reverse direction.” Appeal Brief 9; see Final
Rejection 6 (“The main difference between the present application and the
above reference [Derakhshan] is that the determination is not being done at
the BTS [Base Transceiver Station].”). In addressing Derakhshan’s
1 “Regarding claims 19-27 and 29—33, they are the corresponding apparatus
claim of method claims 1, 3—8, 11—12, 14 and 17—18. Therefore, claims 19—
27 and 29-33 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.” Final
Rejection 11.
3
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
deficiency, the Examiner relies upon Williams and finds “Williams discloses
the determination being done at the BTS and sending the determination to
the controller (see par. 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
of the ordinary skills in the art at time of the invention to combine the
teachings to connect to multiple networks.” Final Rejection 6—7.
Appellants argue:
[SJimply because Williams’ BTS sends a generic handover
request to a controller does not suggest, at all, that a specific
3GPP [3rd Generation Partnership Project] Radio Link
Reconfiguration Commit message (i.e. the alleged “carrier
reallocation signal”) disclosed in Derakhshan can be similarly
sent. In particular, as noted above, nothing in Derakhshan
discloses or suggests that the Radio Link Reconfiguration
Commit message (i.e. the alleged “carrier reallocation signal”) is
a handover request message, and more specifically, that the
Radio Link Reconfiguration Commit message should or could
ever be sent in a direction opposite from that described in
Derakhshan, e.g. from a serving base station to an RNC.
Appeal Brief 10.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants’
have not provided any technical rationale as to why Williams’ BTS could
not send a signal in the manner proposed by the Examiner.2
Appellants also argue “ Williams further fails to disclose that its
handover request ‘includes a time associated with the carrier reallocation to
synchronize an inter-frequency handover for other base stations having a cell
in an active set of cells associated with the mobile radio terminal.’” Appeal
2 Attorney “argument. . . cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are
insufficient to rebut a prima facie case).
4
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
Brief 10. We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because the
Examiner relied upon Derakhshan to disclose a carrier reallocation signal
with a time component. See Final Rejection 6.
Appellants contends “the Final Office Action fails to sufficiently
establish why one of skill in the art would modify Derakhshan with the
teachings of Williams to arrive at the features of claims 1 and 19.” Appeal
Brief 10. Appellants contend “one of skill in the art has to assume that a
handover request in Williams is equivalent to the Radio Fink
Reconfiguration Commit message of Derakhshan, which is not suggested by
the references” and “the Final Office Action does not provide support for the
assumption that the handover request message and the 3 GPP Radio Fink
Reconfiguration Commit message are the same.” Appeal Brief 11.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants
have failed to provide any evidence that Williams’ signal is incompatible to
a signal used in conventional 3GPP based UMTS [Universal Mobile
Telecommunication System] networks.3 Consequently, we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, as well
as, dependent claims 2—18 and 20—33, not argued separately. See Appeal
Brief 12.
3 “As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398,418 (2007).
5
Appeal 2016-006083
Application 12/992,484
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1—33 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6