Ex Parte Jamadagni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

14385139 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/385,139
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
09/12/2014
08/28/2018
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Satish Nanjunda Swamy Jamadagni
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.
P20065-US
(SAMSOS-20065)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8330
EXAMINER
BHATTI, HASHIM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SATISHNANJUNDA SWAMY JAMADAGNI,
RAJA VELSAMY RAJADURAI, and SONG-YEAN CHO
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85, 13 91
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 38, 39, 42--46, 49--53, 56, and 57. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd." App. Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
"The present invention relates to cellular networks, and more
particularly relates to a method and system for providing continued service
to user devices under unable to serve conditions." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 3 8 is
reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics).
38. A method for performing an access control by a user
equipment (UE) in a communication network, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, from a first network, a message including information
indicating a network failure if the UE is unable to be served by
the first network;
selecting a candidate public land mobile network (PLMN) for a
PLMN selection, wherein the UE does not select the first network
as the candidate PLMN while a timer based on a timer value
preconfigured in the UE is running; and
performing the PLMN selection based on the information
indicating the network failure.
App. Br., Claims App'x., p. 1.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 38, 39, 45, 46, 52, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Liao (US 2012/0178449 Al; published July
12, 2012) and Niemi (US 2012/0294144 Al; published Nov. 22, 2012).
Final Act. 2-5.
Claims 42, 49, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Liao, Niemi, and Ramachandran (US 2011/0249624 Al;
published Oct. 13, 2011 ). Final Act. 5---6.
2
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
Claims 43, 44, 50, 51, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Liao, Niemi, and Watfa (US 2010/0297979 Al;
published Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 6-7.
ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 38 by
finding Liao and Niemi teach or suggest the recited "selecting a candidate
public land mobile network (PLMN) for a PLMN selection, wherein the UE
does not select the first network as the candidate PLMN while a timer based
on a timer value preconfigured in the UE is running"?
2. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 39 by
finding Liao and Niemi teach or suggest the recited "cause value of the
network failure"?
3. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 42 by
finding Liao, Niemi, and Ramachandran teach or suggest the recited "a
PLMN or a radio access technology (RAT) of a second network to which the
PLMN selection is performed to attach is different from that of the first
network"?
4. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43 by finding Liao,
Niemi, and Watfa teach or suggest the recited "message is a non-access
stratum (NAS) message"?
5. Has the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 44 by
finding Liao, Niemi, and Watfa teach or suggest the recited "NAS message
includes a tracking area update reject message"?
3
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
ANALYSIS
A. Issue I-Claims 38, 45, and 52
Claims 38, 45, and 52 stand rejected as obvious over Liao and Niemi.
We select claim 38 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 8 over Liao
and Niemi, asserting the cited art does not teach or suggest the recited
"selecting a candidate public land mobile network (PLMN) for a PLMN
selection, wherein the UE does not select the first network as the candidate
PLMN while a timer based on a timer value preconfigured in the UE is
running." App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 3-5. Specifically, Appellants contend
"the cited portion of Niemi merely discloses that the back-off timer is
provided for the UE to defer the transmission of [ an attach request]
message"2 and claim 3 8 rather "recites that the first network instructs the UE
not to select the first network as the candidate PLMN for the timer value."
App. Br. 12-13 (citing Niemi ,r 37). This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 3 8. The claimed method does not require instructing the UE to
avoid selecting the first network for the timer duration. Rather, the claimed
2 The Examiner cites Liao' s and Niemi' s teachings that "attach request" and
"attach reject" messages are "mobility management (MM)" messages. See
e.g., Final Act. 2-3 (relying on Liao ,r,r 30-33 and Niemi ,r 37). Generally
speaking, the mobile devices transmit an attach request message to a
network to request attachment. See e.g., Liao ,r 6; Niemi ,r 3 7. The network
may reject the request by replying with an attach reject message. Id. Both
Liao and Niemi teach a back-off timer, within a UE, for temporarily
suspending transmission of MM messages to a network. Id.
4
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
method step requires only "selecting" a candidate network, "wherein" the
first network is not selected for the timer duration. The "where[in] clause .
. . simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited."
Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting
Minton v. Nat'! Ass 'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2003)). Because the wherein clause does not "inform the mechanics of
how the [claimed selecting] is executed," Minton, id., there need only be
selecting of a candidate network that results in not selecting the first network
for the timer duration.
As the Examiner finds, Liao' s paragraph 31 teaches searching for a
new network while backing off the currently failing network. Ans. 7; Final
Act. 2-3; Liao ,r 31 ("If a suitable cell of another service network is found
and the searched service network does not have an MM back-off timer
running in the controller module 312, the mobile communication device 310
may try to perform the Attach procedure with that service network."); see
also Liao Fig. 7, ,r 33 (switching from Service Network 320 to Service
Network A). As a result, "the UE does not select the first network" for the
duration of the back-off timer. The Reply Brief does not respond to the
Examiner's reliance on Liao' s paragraph 31, much less persuasively rebut it.
Reply Br. 3-5.
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Niemi teaches the
claimed "timer value preconfigured in the UE" because "Niemi discloses
that the UE starts the back-off timer with the received value, regardless of
whether the UE is preconfigured." Reply Br. 3--4. As an initial matter, this
Reply Brief argument addresses findings in the Final Action. Final Act. 3
5
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
(applying Niemi ,r 37). The argument could have been raised in the Appeal
Brief, but was not, and thus is waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Even if the argument had been timely raised, it would not have been
persuasive in view ofNiemi's teaching that "[the] message may ... include a
back-off timer (e.g., T3346) value-although the UE may be pre-configured
or programmed with a back-off timer value." Niemi ,r 3 7. We understand
this statement as teaching that the timer value can be set by the received
message or, alternatively, pre-programmed into the UE.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 38, 45, and 52 over Liao and Niemi.
B. Issue 2-Claims 39, 46, and 53
Claims 39, 46, and 53 stand rejected as obvious over Liao and Niemi.
We select claim 39 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 39 recites: "The method of claim 38, wherein the information
includes a cause value of the network failure."
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39 over Liao
and Niemi, asserting the cited art does not teach or suggest the recited
"cause value of the network failure." App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 5---6.
Specifically, Appellants contend Liao' s cited "EMM3 cause value .. .
included in the tracking area update [(TAU)] rejection message ... is merely
used for updating the location of the UE in a network" and claim 39 rather
3 "EMM" means "EPA mobility management." Liao ,r 25. "EPS" means
"Evolved Packet System." Id. ,r 24.
6
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
"recites that ... the cause value indicates ... why the first network is unable
to connect with the UE." App. Br. 15. This argument is not persuasive.
As the Examiner finds, Liao' s paragraph 26 teaches the EMM cause
value indicates that the UE's attach request failed due to NAS-level
congestion on the network. Ans. 8; see also Liao ,r 28 (same teaching for a
failed TAU REQUEST message and resultant TAU REJECT message).
Appellants do not explain persuasively why Liao' s EMM cause value is not
"a cause value of the network failure."
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 39, 46, and 53 over Liao and Niemi.
C. Issue 3-Claims 42, 49, and 56
Claims 42, 49, and 56 stand rejected as obvious over Liao, Niemi, and
Ramachandran. We select claim 42 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 42 recites: "The method of claim 38, wherein at
least one of a PLMN or a radio access technology (RAT) of a second
network to which the PLMN selection is performed to attach is different
from that of the first network."
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 42 over Liao,
Niemi, and Ramachandran, asserting the cited art does not teach or suggest
the recited "at least one of a PLMN or a radio access technology (RAT) of a
second network to which the PLMN selection is performed to attach is
different from that of the first network." App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6-8.
Specifically, Appellants contend the "cited portion of Ramachandran
discloses that the UE selects a [network] based on a level of the priority
corresponding to each available system" but not that the UE is configured to
7
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
select only a different type of network. App. Br. 17. This argument is not
persuasive.
As an initial matter, the argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 42. The claimed method does not require the UE to select a
different type of network in every possible circumstance. Rather, claim 42
recites "wherein ... [the] second network ... is different from that of the
first network." This limitation is satisfied if the PLMN or RAT of the
second network selected by the UE is different from the first network. See
supra 4, discussing "wherein" clauses.
As the Examiner finds, Ramachandran' s cited paragraph 81 teaches "a
possibility" by which the UE attaches to a different type of network. Ans. 8.
That is, the Examiner finds Ramachandran teaches the subject matter of
claim 42 because it teaches explicitly that "this could be a different RAT on
the same PLMN or LTE RAT on a different PLMN." Ramachandran ,r 81.
The Reply Brief does not address Ramachandran in view of this reasonable
interpretation, merely repeating the above Appeal Brief argument. Reply
Br. 6-8.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 42, 49, and 56 over Liao and Niemi.
D. Issue 4-Claims 43, 50, and 57
Claims 43, 50, and 57 stand rejected as obvious over Liao, Niemi, and
Watfa. We select claim 43 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 43 recites: "The method of claim 38, wherein the message is a
non-access stratum (NAS) message."
8
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 43 over Liao,
Niemi, and Watfa, asserting the cited art does not teach or suggest the
collective recitations of base claim 3 8 that "[the] message include[ s]
information indicating a network failure" and dependent claim 43 that the
message "is a non-access stratum (NAS) message". App. Br. 17-19; Reply
Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellants contend "[t]he cited portion ofWatfa
merely discloses that emergency services are included by the network in the
NAS message" whereas the claimed "message including information of a
network failure is a NAS message." App. Br. 18 (citing Watfa ,r 119). This
argument is not persuasive.
As the Examiner finds, Liao teaches a TAU REJECT message
indicating the cause of the network failure and Watfa teaches such messages
are a type ofNAS message by describing TAU reject as an example of an
NAS message: "NAS messages including, but not limited to, attach accept,
attach reject, TAU accept, TAU reject, service accept, or service reject"
(Watfa ,r 119). Ans. 9; Final Act. 6; see also id. at 2-3 (citing the TAU
REJECT message of Liao ,r 33). Appellants do not present any evidence or
persuasive reason that the Examiner erred in either interpreting or combining
these teachings. See e.g., Reply Br. 8-9 (replying only that Watfa's cited
NAS message does not indicate the cause of a network failure, which for
which the Examiner's relied on Liao).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 43, 50, and 57 over Liao, Niemi, and Watfa.
9
Appeal2018-002106
Application 14/3 85,139
E. Issue 5-Claims 44 and 51
Claims 44 and 51 stand rejected as obvious over Liao, Niemi, and
Watfa. We select claim 44 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claim 44 recites: "The method of claim 43, wherein the NAS message
includes a tracking area update [(TAU)] reject message."
Appellants' contentions for claim 44 are substantively the same as
those for intervening claim 43, which are not persuasive. The specifying of
a TAU reject message, in claim 44, does not change our analysis because it
is still read on Liao's TAU REJECT message and Watfa's teaching that such
messages are NAS messages. See supra 8-9 (analysis for Issue 4).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 44 and 51 over Liao, Niemi, and Watfa.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 38, 39, 42--46,
49--53, 56, and 57.
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
10