Ex Parte Grob-Lipski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201613058585 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/058,585 05/06/2011 48116 7590 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 02/19/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Heidrun Grob-Lipski 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. LUTZ 201233US01 2449 EXAMINER F ARAGALLA, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HEIDRUN GROB-LIPSKI, STEPHEN KAMINSKI, HAJO-ERICH BAKKER, and DIETRICH ZELLER1 Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-11 and 14--22. Claims 12 and 13 have been canceled. App. Br. 23. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to "handover in a wireless communications network." Spec. 1. In particular, during a handover of a mobile device from its source node (i.e., cell site) to a target node, several types of handover failures may occur. Spec. 1-3. If a handover failure does occur, after the mobile device has associated with a network node (which may be the desired target node, the original source node, or a different, best- available node), information regarding the handover failure is sent from the mobile device to its current network node and then to the source node. Spec. 3--4. According to the Specification, this information is referred to as a re- establishment cause. Spec. 6-7. Information in the re-establishment cause may be used by the source node to "adapt its handover parameters for future handover event[ s]." Spec. 7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A method for handover in a wireless communications network, compnsmg: at a selected network node, receiving a re-establishment cause from a mobile terminal during call re-establishment of the mobile terminal with the selected network node; and at the selected network node, sending the re-establishment cause to a source network node to enable the source network node to identifY failures related to an attempted handover of the mobile terminal from the source network node to a target network node. 2 Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 The Examiner's Rejections 1. Claims 1-7, 11, and 14--22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ton et al. (US 2006/0046724 Al; Mar. 2, 2006) ("Ton") and Kitazoe (US 2009/0149180 Al; June 11, 2009). Final Act. 3- 6.2 2. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ton, Kitazoe, and Johansson et al. (US 2011/0075633 Al; Mar. 31, 2011) ("Johansson"). Final Act. 6.3 Issue on Appeal4 Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kitazoe and Ton teaches or suggests a network node receiving a re-establishment cause from 2 Although the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection addresses claims 1-7, 11, and 14--22 (Final 1A..ct. 3-6), in the statement of rejection the Examiner states "Claims 1-7 and 11, 14, and 15" are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ton and Kitazoe (Final Act. 3). Appellants address the merits of the rejection of claims 1-7, 11, and 14--22 under section 103 being unpatentable over Ton and Kitazoe. Thus, we find the Examiner's typographical error to be harmless. We modify the Examiner's statement of rejection to correct the typographical error and clarify the record. 3 Although the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection addresses claims 8-10 as being unpatentable over Ton and Johansson (Final Act. 6), Appellants address the merits of the rejection of claims 8-10 under section 103 being unpatentable over Ton, Kitazoe, and Johansson. Thus, we find the Examiner's typographical error to be harmless. We modify the Examiner's statement of rejection to correct the typographical error and clarify the record. 4 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments. 3 Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 a mobile terminal and sending the re-establishment cause to a source network node, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS5 Appellants contend "neither Ton, nor Kitazoe, nor the combination thereof disclose or fairly suggest the 're-establishment cause' limitations to the 'receiving' or 'sending' elements." App. Br. 6-7. In particular, although Kitazoe relates to a mobile device that identifies handover failures and performs further cell selection based on the handover failure, Appellants assert "Kitazoe do[ es] not disclose the mobile device sending information on the handover failure [(i.e., the re-establishment cause)] to any network node or any network node receiving [such] information ... from the mobile device." App. Br. 7. Additionally, Appellants argue Ton does not disclose sending a re-establishment cause from a network node to the source network node. App. Br. 7. Rather, Appellants contend, Ton discloses a process for switching between base station controllers (BSCs) when a failure associated with tearing down an existing call has occurred. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds "Kitazoe teaches receiving a re-establishment cause from a mobile terminal during call re-establishment of the mobile terminal with the selected network node and sending the cause to the source network." Final Act. 4 (citing Kitazoe i-fi-f 10, 12, Figs. 9, 10). The Examiner also finds Ton teaches communicating information between a target and source network node to identify failures related to handover. Final Act. 3 5 Throughout this Opinion we have considered the Appeal Brief filed July 23, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed February 4, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on December 5, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action mailed on February 11, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken ("Final Act."). 4 Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 (citing Ton if 44, Fig. 3a). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner explains, referring to Figure 3b of Ton, a failure at a target BSC (which the Examiner maps to the claimed selected network node) sends a reset message to a source BSC. Ans. 7. The Examiner determines the reset message "identif1ies] failures related to an attempted handover failure of the mobile terminal from the source network to a target network node." Ans. 7. Additionally, the Examiner explains Figure 7 of Kitazoe shows the initiation of a handoff by the mobile terminal, which "is read as a re-establishment cause from a mobile terminal during a call re-establishment of the mobile terminal with the selected network node." Ans. 8. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not persuasively demonstrated or identified within Ton or Kitazoe the sending or receiving of a re-establishment cause. In particular, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the reset message illustrated in Figure 3b is used "to identify failures related to handover." See Final Act. 3. Similarly with the Kitazoe reference, the Examiner has not provided sufficient support for the proposed mapping. Figure 7 of Kitazoe illustrates a messaging ladder diagram of a handover of a mobile device (UE) from a source node to target node. See Kitazoe, Fig. 7. The only messaging shown in Figure 7 from the mobile device is a measurement report (to the source node), a handover complete message (to the target node) and random access (to a prepared node). On this record, we disagree with the Examiner's findings that Kitazoe teaches or suggests "a re-establishment cause from a mobile terminal during a call re- establishment of the mobile terminal with the selected network node." See Ans. 8. 5 Appeal2014-004215 Application 13/058,585 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed supra, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejection of independent claims 14 and 21, which contain similar limitations. Further, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-11, 15-20, and 22, which depend from independent claims 1, 14, and 21. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 14--22. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation