Ex Parte Dalal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201613212945 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/212,945 08/18/2011 32968 7590 06/01/2016 KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 8611 Balboa Ave SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR VipulDALAL 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. UTL01046US 7252 EXAMINER ZHU, BO HUI AL VIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): KII-USPatents@kyocera.com Kathleen.Connell@kyocera.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIPUL DALAL, AMIT KALHAN, AROCKIA SUNDER, and TARIQ HASSAN Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-7. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). WeAFFIRM. 3 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Kyocera Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 4 and 8 have been conditionally allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims. Final Act. 4. 3 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 7, 2014 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed September 30, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed July 31, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Wireless communication technologies require newer systems and networks, such as networks using the 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard, to be compatible with legacy systems and networks, such as old circuit switched networks. As such, a wireless mobile device is expected to operate in both (1) a circuit switched network for voice calls as well as (2) a L TE network. Spec. i-f 2. According to Appellants, the 3GPP L TE specification requires the mobile device (1) to receive an incoming call from the circuit switched network, (2) temporarily suspend any L TE session, (3) engage the incoming call, via the circuit switched network, and ( 4) return to the L TE session after the call via the circuit switched network is complete. Id. Appellants' invention proposes handling such an incoming call, via the circuit switched network, without a determination of receipt of a connection release message from the L TE network authorizing the suspension of the L TE session. Id. at i-f 3. In other words, Appellants' mobile device is able to suspend an L TE session in response to a page message from the circuit switched network and engage an incoming call, via the circuit switched network, without the need to receive a connection release message from the L TE network authorizing the suspension of the L TE session. Abstract. Claim 1 is independent and describes Appellants' invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: September 9, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed August 18, 2011 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 1. A mobile wireless communication device comprising: a transceiver configured to non-simultaneously maintain a circuit switched call with a circuit switched network and a Long Term Evolution (LTE) session with an L TE network, the transceiver comprising: a circuit switched receiver configured to receive a page message from the circuit switched network while the transceiver is maintaining an LTE session; an L TE transmitter configured to send an Extended Service Request message to the L TE network in response to the page message; and a circuit switched transmitter configured to send a page response message to the circuit switched network without a determination of receipt, at the mobile wireless communication device, of a connection release message authorizing suspension of the LTE session. App. Br. 12 (Claims App'x.) (emphasis added). Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Yang (US Publication No. 2012/0087340 Al; April 12, 2012). Final Act. 2-3. (2) Claims 2 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yang and Fang (US Publication No. 2010/0317378 Al; Dec. 16, 2010). Final Act. 3--4. ANALYSIS § 102(e) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 based on Yang Independent claim 1 recites a mobile device comprising a transceiver operable to handle a call in a circuit switched network and to maintain an L TE session in an L TE network, including: 3 Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 ( 1) "a circuit switched receiver configured to receive a page message from the circuit switched network while the transceiver is maintaining an LTE session" and (2) "a circuit switched transmitter configured to send a page response message to the circuit switched network without a determination of receipt, at the mobile wireless communication device, of a connection release message authorizing suspension of the LTE session." Similarly, independent claim 5 recites a corresponding method performed in a mobile device including: (1) "receiving a page message from the circuit switched network while a transceiver of the mobile wireless communication device is maintaining an LTE session" and (2) "sending a page response message to the circuit switched network without a determination of receipt, at the mobile wireless communication device, of a connection release message authorizing suspension of the LTE session." Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding the first limitation. In particular, Appellants acknowledge Yang's Figure 7, step 61, describes user equipment (UE - mobile device) receiving a page message (e.g., IMSI page), but argue that Yang does not teach that a page message is received "while the transmitter is maintaining an L TE session" as recited in Appellants' claim 1, and similarly, in Appellants' claim 5. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, Yang only describes the UE (mobile device) in the context of receiving the IMSI page that "is not registered with the MME" (mobility management entity) and "is 'implicitly detached' from the MME of the LTE." App. Br. 9 (citing Yang i-fi-180-81, Fig. 7). As such, Appellants argue Yang does not teach the UE must maintain an L TE session in order to receive an IMSI page, and actually 4 Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 teaches away from the "circuit switched receiver configured to receive a page message from the circuit switched network while the transceiver is maintaining an LTE session" as recited in Appellants' claim 1 and similarly Appellants' claim 5. Id. at 9-10. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 2--4; see also Final Act. 2- 3. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that although Yang's Figure 7 depicts the UE behavior, Yang's Figure 8 actually shows a signaling diagram between the UE and other components of the wireless network operable in both a circuit switched network and a 3GPP L TE network. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Yang's Figure 8 shows a UE attached to the L TE in an L TE idle mode, as indicated by A, which is further described in TABLE 1. Ans. 3 (citing Yang i-f 64, TABLE 1). Nevertheless, Appellants continue to argue the Examiner's reading of Yang's Figure 8 is "based on a piecemeal view of various portions of Yang." Reply Br. 2. However, this argument is without merit because both Yang's Figure 7 and Yang's Figure 8 describe the same embodiment disclosed, and use similar terminology, such as the indication A, as the first embodiment. See Yang i-fi-1 78, 79. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 5 based on Yang as well as their respective dependent claims 3 and 7, which Appellants do not argue separately. 5 Appeal2015-000308 Application 13/212,945 With respect to dependent claims 2 and 6, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 8-11. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 2 and 6. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation