Ex Parte Grech

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

11710554 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111710,554 02/26/2007
12358 7590 05/02/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sandro Grech
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.
39700-711001US/NC41756US 4334
EXAMINER
MEHRA, INDER P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANDRO GRECH
Appeal2014-007187
Application 11/710,554
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007187
Application 11/710,554
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-38, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A node comprising at least one processor configured to:
communicate with a mobile node via a first connection;
communicate with a third node via a first forwarding path
between the node and the third node; and
following initiation of a handover procedure for handover
of the first connection to a second connection between the
mobile node and a target network node, transmit data, buffered
in the node and intended for the mobile node, to the third node
via the first forwarding path between the node and the third
node for transmission to the target network node via a second
forwarding path between the target network node and the third
node, the transmitted data intended for the mobile node sent to
the third node in response to a handover complete message
indicative that the handover procedure was successful.
Prior Art
Flore US 2007 /0021120 Al Jan. 25, 2007
(provisional application 60/701,240 filed Jul. 19, 2005)
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Flore and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art.
2
Appeal2014-007187
Application 11/710,554
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the Examiner's
responses to the issues raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief for the
reasons given in the Answer. We highlight the following issues raised in the
Reply Brief for completeness.
Appellant contends the AP A only teaches two nodes, but does not
teach an intervening third node as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 7-8.
However, Figures 1-3 of the provisional application of Flore ("Flore") teach
the intervening third node. See Flore Appendix 3-5. In particular, in
Figures 2-3 of Flore, E-Node B corresponds to the claimed "node," user
equipment 110 corresponds to the claimed "mobile node," Inter-AS Anchor
corresponds to the claimed "third node," and SGSN corresponds to the
claimed "target network node" within the meaning of claim 1. Also, as
shown in Figure 3, the path between the user equipment and the E-Node B
corresponds to the claimed "first connection," the path between the E-Node
and Inter-AS Anchor corresponds to the claimed "first forwarding path," and
the path between the Inter-AS Anchor and the SGSN corresponds to the
claimed "second forwarding path" within the meaning of claim 1.
Forwarding data from "node" (E-Node B) to "third node" (Inter-AS
Anchor) "via the first forwarding path between" these nodes for
transmission to the "target network node" (SGSN) "via a second forwarding
path between" these nodes, as suggested by Figures 1-3 of Flore, where the
data is sent in response to a handover complete message as taught by
paragraphs 12 and 14 of the AP A, is the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable
3
Appeal2014-007187
Application 11/710,554
result of forwarding data from the source network to the target network as
taught by the AP A.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-3 8 which
fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-38 is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
4