Ex Parte Huang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201613071250 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/071,250 03/24/2011 XIAOLONG HUANG 101430 3618 23696 7590 01/04/2017 OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD EXAMINER 5775 MOREHOUSE DR. SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 REDDIVALAM, SRINIVASA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): us-docketing@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAOLONG HUANG and FATIH ULUPINAR Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 Technology Center 2400 Before: BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—8, 10-14, 16—20, and 22—24. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 15; Ans. 2—18. Claims 3, 9, 15 and 21 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 CLAIMED INVENTION The Specification is directed to techniques for managing radio bearers in telecommunication networks with relays. Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for operating a donor base station having a first plurality of radio bearers (RBs) that interface with a relay node, the method comprising: determining traffic congestion on the first plurality of RBs; and taking one or more actions to trigger removal of at least one of a second plurality of RBs that interface between the relay node and at least one user equipment (UE) based on the determined traffic congestion, wherein the taking one or more actions comprises modifying a quality of service (QoS) requirement associated with the first plurality of RBs based on the traffic congestion. Nokia Siemens Networks et al., DL Flow Control over Un Interface for Relaying System, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #68, R2- 096532, November 9-13, 2009 (“Nokia”). REJECTIONS Claims 1,7, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Nokia and Yi. Final Act. 2—10; Ans. Zhao Yi REFERENCES US 2009/0239526 Al Sept. 24, 2009 US 2012/0127863 Al May 24, 2012 2-10. 2 Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 Claims 2, 4—6, 8, 10-12, 14, 16—18, 20, and 22—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nokia, Yi, and Zhao. Final Act. 10-18; Ans. 10-18. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 The Examiner finds that the combination of Nokia and Yi teaches or suggests all of the elements of claim 1. Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner relies on Yi’s teachings regarding Quality of Service (QoS) requirements as teaching or suggesting the limitation of “modifying a quality of service (QoS) requirement associated with the first of a plurality of RBs [radio bearers] based on the traffic congestion.” Id. at 4. Appellants argue that the cited passages of Yi do not teach or suggest this modifying limitation because those passages merely address managing traffic on downlink buffers and not modifying a QoS requirement. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3—5. We disagree. Yi discloses a downlink buffer that manages traffic transmitted to a relay node (RN). Yi | 51. Yi further discloses, the downlink buffer can be managed per QoS of RBs to reduce traffic congestion. Yi 154. As the Examiner finds, Yi discloses that the QoS of the RBs includes data rates. Ans. 19 (citing Yi 35, 47, 49, 54). We agree with the Examiner that these disclosures suggest modifying a QoS requirement (e.g., data rate) associated with a plurality of RBs based on traffic congestion (e.g., slowing the guaranteed data rate so less traffic will pass through at any given time). Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 19—20. The Examiner finds Yi teaches or suggests the limitation in claim 1 of “taking one or more actions to trigger removal of at least one of a second 3 Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 plurality of RBs that interface between the relay node and at least one user equipment (UE) based on the determined traffic congestion.” Final Act 3^4; Ans. 19-20. Appellants argue that Yi fails to teach or suggest this taking limitation because claim 1 also requires that the action taken comprises modifying a quality of service requirement, and Yi does not teach or suggest removing an RB based on the modification of its quality of service requirement. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. We disagree. As discussed above, Yi suggests modifying a quality of service parameter to manage traffic at an RN when an RN is congested. Yi further discloses managing traffic at an RN by, among other things, stopping radio transmission for a radio bearer, for Yi discloses when the traffic congestion is released data transmission in a radio bearer can be restarted, meaning that the transmission had been stopped. Final Act. 3^4; Ans. 19—22 (citing Yi 35, 47, 49, 54, 62). Stopping transmission at an RB teaches or suggests removing the RB (i.e., one could view a radio bearer with no traffic as not being a radio bearer, alternatively, a radio bearer with no traffic would suggest since its removal.) We agree with the Examiner that collectively these disclosures suggest the disputed taking limitation. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Yi Fig. 10,1 62); Ans. 19—22. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 7, 13, and 19, not separately argued. App. Br. 8—11. Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 The Examiner finds Yi teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 2 of “selecting at least one of the second of the plurality of RBs based on an indication of an allocation and retention priority (ARP) of each second plurality of RBs” and the corresponding limitations in claims 8, 14, and 20. Final Act. 11; Ans. 20-22. Appellants argue that the passages in Yi cited by 4 Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 the Examiner do not teach or suggest the selection of an RB based on an ARP. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants note that the Specification uses its ARP to decide whether a bearer establishment or modification request can be accepted or needs to be rejected in case of resource limitations. Reply Br. 5 (citing Spec. 1 66). Appellants further argue that the Specification distinguishes between a QoS parameter and an ARP. Id. at 5—6 (citing Spec. 1 66). The Specification, in fact, indicates the ARP is a particular type of QoS parameter. Spec. 1 66 (“QoS parameters include ... an Allocation and Retention Priority . . .”). In the Final Action and the Answer, the Examiner sets forth how Yi teaches or suggests selecting an RB based on a QoS parameter, but not how Yi does so based on an indication of the specific QoS parameter recited in claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 (i.e., the ARP). Final Act. 11—12; Ans. 20—22. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8, 14, and 20. Claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 The Examiner finds the combination of Yi and Zhao teaches or suggests the following limitation of claim 4: [Wjherein the QoS requirement is modified such that the relay node, responsive to the modified QoS requirement, selects at least one of the second plurality of RBs for removal, and generates an indication of bearer release of the selected RB for a mobility management entity (MME) associated with a UE associated with the selected RB. Final Act. 12—13. Appellants argue that Yi and Zhao fail to teach this disputed limitation because the references do not teach or suggest modifying a QoS requirement to select a radio bearer for removal. App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 6—7. We disagree with Appellants’ argument. 5 Appeal 2016-000959 Application 13/071,250 As set forth above for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that Yi suggests modifying QoS parameters, which results in the removal of RBs. The suggested modification of the QoS parameters and resulting removal for Yi are deliberate acts, which teach, or at least suggest, selection of the radio bearer for removal. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 and of claims 10, 16, and 22, not separately argued. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24 Appellants present the same arguments for claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24 as for claims 1, 7, 13, and 19. App. Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24. Further, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationales set forth in the Final Action and the Answer for the rejections of 1, 4—7, 10—13, 16—19, and 22—24. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—7, 10—13, 16-19, and 22-24. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 8, 14, and 20. 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-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation