Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2018

14156846 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2018)

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.
14/156,846 01/16/2014 Woonhee HWANG 089229.00793 1481
32294 7590 02/20/2018
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
EXAMINER
JIA, XIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2018 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):
IPGENER ALTY C <§> SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOONHEE HWANG and ERIC DRURY1
Appeal 2017-006947
Application 14/156,846
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON M.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Solutions and
Newtorks Oy of Espoo. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-006947
Application 14/156,846
INVENTION
Appellants disclosed invention is directed to a method for use in a
cellular communication system in which identification of additional
supported bands of neighbor cell(s) are provided. See abstract. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method, comprising:
reading, by a user equipment, a frequency band list
broadcast by at least one neighbor cell, wherein the frequency
band list comprises frequency bands supported by the at least
one neighbor cell; and
reporting, to a cell serving the user equipment, the frequency
band list comprising the frequency bands supported by the at
least one neighbor cell.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
unpatentable over Yamada (US 2011/0281615 Al; published Nov. 17, 2011)
and Zhao (US 2012/0244905 Al; published Sept. 27, 2012). Final Act. 2—
9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the claims are unpatentable.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 08,
2016, Reply Brief filed March 27, 2017, Final Office Action mailed April
18, 2016, Appellants’ Specification submitted January 16, 2014, and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 27, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-006947
Application 14/156,846
Appellants argue that the combination of Yamada and Zhao do not
teach a user’s equipment reading a frequency band list broadcast by at least
one neighbor cell and reporting to the cell serving the user’s equipment the
frequency bands supported by the at least one neighbor cell. App. Br. 8—11;
Reply. Br. 3—5. Appellants argue:
Yamada merely teaches obtaining system information that is
broadcast from multiple cells. This is different from what is
recited in the present claims. Specifically, according to the
present claims, embodiments of the present invention read a
frequency band list broadcast by a neighbor cell. Yamada
makes no mention of a frequency band list broadcasted by a
neighbor cell.
In other words, Yamada is directed to system information
broadcast from multiple cells. The present invention, however,
is directed to a multiple frequency band list corresponding to
one neighbor cell.
App. Br. 8-9.
Further, Appellants argue that Zhao does not disclose or suggest reporting
the frequency band list comprising frequency bands that were broadcast by
at least one neighbor cell. App. Br. 9—10; Reply Br. 5—6.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 4—9. The Examiner finds that Yamada teaches the user
equipment provides a measurement report to the serving cell, which includes
the frequency band of neighboring cells. Answer 4—6. The Examiner cites
Zhao to further clarity that the user report includes frequency bands.
Answer 6—7. We concur with the Examiner’s interpretation and findings
and adopt them as our own.
We add the following for emphasis. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument that:
3
Appeal 2017-006947
Application 14/156,846
Yamada and Zhao are directed to multiple measurement
reporting and multiple frequencies which correspond to
multiple cells. In contrast, embodiments of the invention
consider a multiple frequency band list corresponding to one
cell. Therefore, Zhao, like Yamada, fails to disclose or suggest
reporting, to a cell serving the user equipment, the frequency
band list comprising the frequency bands supported by a
neighbor cell.
App. Br. 10. Claim 1 does not recite that the report is for only one neighbor
cell and does not recite that there are multiple frequencies for each neighbor
cell. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim. We additionally note that Yamada suggests multiple frequencies for
each cell (including neighbor cell) as Yamada equates carrier components
with frequency bands (see para. 12) states that a cell can have plural carrier
components (see para. 265). Thus, as we are not persuaded of error by
Appellants’ arguments and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
With respect to independent claims, 6 and 12 present the same
arguments as discussed above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 12—16, 18—
21. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 12 for the
same reasons as claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments directed to dependent claims 2 through 5 and 7
through 11 merely restate the limitations of the claims and assert that they
are patentable by virtue of their additional limitations and because they
depend upon claim. App. Br. 10-12, 16—18. Such statements are considered
to be nothing more than a general allegation of patentability and is not
considered a separate patentability argument. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
4
Appeal 2017-006947
Application 14/156,846
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 12 under
35U.S.C. § 103.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5