Ex Parte Callender

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

12752752 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121752,752 04/01/2010
10949 7590 02/19/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher Peter Callender
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.
042933/413632 3142
EXAMINER
PATEL,AJIT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PETER CALLENDER
Appeal2014-003439
Application 12/752,752 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and
JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-11 and 13. Claim 12 has been objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but containing allowable subject matter. Claims 14--20
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003439
Application 12/752,752
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a cell reselection procedure in a
cellular communications system. Spec. i-fi-f l-2, 6. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
memory configured to store information relating to at
least one of an identity of a source cell and a physical
characteristic of the source cell;
control circuitry configured to initiate a cell selection or
cell reselection procedure from the source cell to a target cell
responsive to analyzing measurement data; and
transceiver circuitry configured to initiate transmitting
the stored information to the target cell,
wherein the apparatus is embodied in a user equipment
and remote from base stations of the source and target cells.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTION
Claims 1-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Amirijoo (US 2009/0191862 Al, July 30, 2009) and Lim
(US 2010/0210268 Al, Aug. 19, 2010). Final Act. 2--4.
ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Amirijoo and
Lim teaches or suggests: (1) "memory configured to store information
relating to at least one of an identity of a source cell and a physical
characteristic of the source cell"; and (2) "transceiver circuitry configured to
2
Appeal2014-003439
Application 12/752,752
initiate transmitting the stored information to the target cell," as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Lim as
teaching "memory configured to store information relating to at least one of
an identity of a source cell and a physical characteristic of the source cell"
and "transceiver circuitry configured to initiate transmitting the stored
information to the target cell." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3. Specifically, the
Examiner cites Lim's "storage unit that stores an access allowed list
including identity information" for teaching the recited "memory." See
Final Act. 3 (citing Lim i-f 11 ). The Examiner also finds Lim teaches "user
equipment [that] send[ s] the CSG ID [Closed Subscriber Group identifier] of
the serving base station to the target base station in handover request[,]
which reads on a memory (inherentiy in a [sic] user equipment)." Ans. 3
(citing Lim i-fi-1 84--85).
Appellant argues paragraph 11 of Lim teaches receiving an identity of
a target cell base station, rather than storing or transmitting an identity of a
source cell. App. Br. 12-13 (citing Lim i-f 11). Appellant also argues the
"measurement message" described in paragraph 11 is sent "to the serving
BS (source cell)," which "is not equivalent to transmitting the stored
information (of the source cell) to the target cell." Id. at 13. Regarding the
Examiner's citation to paragraphs 84--85 of Lim, Appellant argues "the cited
portion of Lim does not disclose or suggest any storing of information
relating to ... an identity of a source cell." Reply Br. 4. Appellant
likewise emphasizes that the CSG ID cited by the Examiner (which is part of
3
Appeal2014-003439
Application 12/752,752
a "Handover Request message") relates to the "target femto cell base
station," rather than the serving/source base station. Id. (citing Lim i-f 84).
We are persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Although the Examiner
finds Lim teaches storing information relating to the "identity of a source
cell" in claim 1, both citations provided by the Examiner relate to identifying
a target cell. Specifically, the "storage unit" in paragraph 11 of Lim "stores
an access allowed list," but the same paragraph describes that "identity
information of a target femto cell BS [base station]" is the information that
is extracted from the access allowed list. Lim i-f 11 (emphasis added). The
Examiner's reliance on the CSG ID in paragraph 84 is similarly erroneous,
because Lim states this "identity information" is related to "the target femto
cell base station," rather than the source base station. Id. i-f 84 (emphasis
added). Because the Examiner has not established the storing of "an identity
of a source cell," the Examiner also errs in finding Lim teaches the recited
"transceiver circuitry" sends "stored information" about the source ceH "to
the target cell." See App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. Nor does the Examiner
provide a rationale as to why it would have been obvious to modify Lim's
teachings on storing and transmitting target cell information to reach the
limitations in claim 1 on storing and transmitting source cell information.
For these reasons, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the rejections of claims 2-11 and 13, which all recite
substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and are rejected on substantially
the same bases.
4
Appeal2014-003439
Application 12/752,752
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 13 is reversed.
REVERSED
5