Ex Parte Jeon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

13299316 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/299,316
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
11/17/2011
03/19/2019
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joseph Jeon
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.
SP11421-US
(SAMS06-11421)
CONFIRMATION NO.
2336
EXAMINER
SMITH, JOSHUA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 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
Ex parte JOSEPH JEON, KI-YOUNG HAN, BYOUNG-
HA YI, and HYON-SEUNG LEE
Appeal 2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
Technology Center 2400
Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
BACKGROUND2
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for load balancing
in multi-cell wireless access system. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for load balancing in a multi-cell wireless
access system, the method comprising:
determining a mode that corresponds to at least one of
increasing, decreasing, or maintaining a transmission (TX)
power for a base station (BS) based on a load for the BS;
determining a change value for the TX power based on the
determined mode;
determining at least one mobile station (MS) among a
plurality of MSs based on the change value;
determining expected data rate gains of the plurality of
MSs; and
controlling the TX power based on the expected data rate
gains, wherein the expected data rate gains are gains to be
obtained if the at least one MS performs a handover based on the
TX power controlled by the change value.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4--9, 11-13, 16-21, and23-26 are rejected underpre-AIA
35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being unpatentable over US 2012/0282979 Al,
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
November 17, 2011 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed November 16,
2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed June 2, 2017 (with corrected
Claims Appendix filed July 25, 2017) ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's
Answer mailed November 30, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed
January 29, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
published Nov. 8, 2012 ("Ashraf') in view of US 2010/0240369 Al,
published Sept. 23, 2010 ("Law").
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Ashraf and Law in view of US 2003/0050066
Al, published Mar. 13, 2003 ("Tobe").
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Ashraf and Law in view of US 5,912,884, issued
June 15, 1999 ("Park").
ANALYSIS 3
Claims 1, 13, 25, and 26
The Examiner relies on a combination of Ashraf and Law for teaching
or suggesting the limitations "determining expected data rate gains of the
plurality of MSs [ mobile station]" and "controlling the TX [transmission]
power based on the expected data rate gains, wherein the expected data rate
gains are gains to be obtained if the at least one MS performs a handover
based on the TX power controlled by the change value." Final Act. 4--5.
Specifically, the Examiner relies primarily on Ashraf for these limitations
except that the Examiner notes Ashraf discloses expected gains, but does not
explicitly disclose expected data rate gains. Id. ( citing Ashraf ,r 71 ); see
also Ans. 30 ("Although providing an implicit teaching, Ashraf fails to
explicitly teach expected data rate gains . .. "). Instead, the Examiner relies
3 Appellants argue that the combination of Zangi and Han does not render
these claims obvious. Appeal Br. 15-17. Because the Final Action does not
assert a rejection based on Zangi and Han, we do not address these
arguments in this Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c); Final Act. 3-27. We
also note that in the Reply Brief, Appellants do not address the Examiner's
"Response to Argument" on pages 28-59 of the Answer, but only address
the "Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal" on pages 2-28 of the
Answer. See Reply Br. 4--23 (citing Ans. 4, 6-9, 22, 23, 25).
3
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
on Law as disclosing expected data rate gains because Law explicitly
discusses monitoring the quality of the broadband connection based on
quality or speed of the communication link. Id. (citing Law Fig. 2, ,r,r 46-
51).
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not disclose these
limitations. Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5---6. According to Appellants, the
cited portions of Law "only consider[] that it would be advantageous to the
terminal to perform a handover," but the claim requires that the expected
data rate gains are determined based on the assumption that at least one MS
performs a handover and "also considering the remaining MSs which [are]
not expected to perform the handover." Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner responds that Appellants do not address the rejection at
issue. Specifically, the Law reference is relied upon only for the teaching of
"expected data rate gains" and Ashraf is relied upon for teaching the rest of
the disputed limitations-"determining expected gains of the plurality of
MSs" and "control the TX power based on the expected gains, wherein the
expected gains are gains to be obtained if the at least one MS performs a
handover based on the TX power controlled by the change value." Ans. 29.
We are not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner's rejection is
flawed. First, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 40-41, 42--43) that
"[ c ]laim 1 does not require determining the expected data rate gain of
remaining MSs excluding the at least one MS" or considering any
"remaining MSs which is not expected to perform the handover," but
"only requires determining expected data rate gains of the plurality of
MSs" and "controlling the TX power based on the expected data rate
gains, wherein the expected data rate gains are gains to be obtained if
the at least one MS performs a handover based on the TX power
4
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
controlled by the change value." We also agree with the Examiner (Final
Act. 4--5; Ans. 29-31, 40-44) that Ashraf discloses determining the expected
gains of the plurality of MSs and controlling TX power based on expected
gains considering if at least one MS performs a handover based on the TX
power controlled by the change value (Ashraf,r,r 7, 9, 71, 75) and Law
discloses monitoring the connection based on quality or speed of the
communications link (Law Abstract, ,r,r 46-51 ), which is equivalent to
monitoring expected data rate gains.
Second, Appellants' arguments attack the two references considered
in isolation. App. Br. 13 ("The Examiner concedes that Ashraf does not
teach or suggest at least the [two disputed] elements."), 14 ("The cited
portion of Law only considers that it would be advantageous to the terminal
to perform a handover.") Where a rejection rests on the combined
disclosures in the references, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by
attacking the references individually. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 1, 13, 25, and 26 would have been obvious
over a combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15
The Examiner relies on Tobe as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 2 and 14, "determin[ e/ing] required power values needed for a
handover of the plurality of MSs; and identify[ing] a minimum value among
the required power values to be the change value." Final Act. 22-24.
Specifically, the Examiner explains that Tobe teaches:
when a cell radius change is decided upon by the base station, a
radius decrement interval RL (identifying a minimum value
5
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
among the required power values to be the change value) is
obtained by dividing the difference between the new cell radius
after change R1 and the present cell radius Ro by the number of
times N of change ( determining required power values needed
for a handover of MSs) as indicated by the following formula
(Formula 2) (S21 ). RL =(Ro-R1)/N (Formula 2). The processes
are performed by a cell formation processing unit 15
(determining required power values needed for a handover of
the plurality of MSs; and identifying a minimum value among
the required power values to be the change value).
Final Act. 22-24 (citing Tobe Figs. 2, 8, ,r,r 78-82). According to the
Examiner, Tobe's teaching of a cell radius change "is substantively the same
as identifying a minimum value among the required power values to be the
change value" and Tobe's teaching of dividing the difference between the
new cell radius after change RI and the present radius RO by the number of
times N of change "is substantively the same as determining required power
values needed for a handover of MSs. " Ans. 45--46.
Appellants argue that merely changing the radius of an existing cell
with new cell coverage does not teach or suggest the limitation recited by
claims 2 and 14. Appeal Br. 18; Reply Br. 17-18. We agree with
Appellants. The Examiner does not explain, nor do we see in the cited
portion of Tobe, how Tobe's disclosure of changing a radius of an existing
cell is relevant to "identifying a minimum value among the required power
values to be the change value" as recited in claims 2 and 14. In particular, it
is unclear from the cited portions of Tobe and from the Examiner's
explanation how making a predetermined change to the radius of a cell
relates to identifying a minimum value.
We are, therefore, unable to sustain the Examiner's finding that claims
2 and 13 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf, Law, and
Tobe. Because claims 3 and 15 depend from claims 2 and 14, respectively,
6
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
for those same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner's finding that claims
3 and 15 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf, Law, and
Tobe.
Claims 4 and 16
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 4 and 16 "wherein the at least one MS includes MSs including a
required power value less than or equal to the change value of the TX
power." Final Act. 6, 12-13 (citing Ashraf Pigs. 1-3, 5, ,r,r 63-75, 93-95).
The Examiner explains that claims 4 and 16 do not contain a step where a
MS is identified. Ans. 47--48. According to the Examiner, Ashraf teaches
"calculat[ ing] P rx diff of all mobile receivers, and a step to decrease base
station pilot transmission power to handover certain mobile receivers, which
suggests that certain mobile receivers required a power value change at or
within the decrease of the base station pilot transmission power," which is
"substantively the same as" the limitations recited by claims 4 and 16. Ans.
48.
We agree with the Examiner that Ashrafs disclosure that certain
mobile receivers may be handed off to other base stations after calculating
the RPSS differences (see Ashraf ,r,r 73-75) suggests the at least one MS
includes MSs including a required power value less than or equal to the
change value of the TX power as recited by claims 4 and 16. Appellants'
conclusory assertion that "merely disclos[ing] that the mobile receiver
receives power and calculates[s] RPSS difference" does not teach or suggest
the limitation recited by claims 4 and 16 is not persuasive as it does not
address Ashrafs disclosure of handing offMSs to another BS. Appeal Br.
20; Reply Br. 7-8. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
7
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
( attorney argument is not evidence).
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 4 and 16 would have been obvious over a
combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 5 and 17
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 5 and 1 7 "wherein the at least one MS includes a predetermined
number of MSs in ascending order of a required power value needed for
handover of an MS." Final Act. 6-7, 13 (citing Ashraf Figs. 1-3, 5, ,r,r 63-
75, 93-95). According to the Examiner, Ashraf teaches dropping extra users
if the load is over capacity (citing Ashraf ,I 75) and "a RPSS difference is
calculated for each mobile receiver" and then "sorted in ascending order,
and then stored in an array, and then there is a decrease in base station pilot
transmission power to cause handover of certain mobile receivers" ( citing
Ashraf ,I 70), which is "substantively the same as" the limitation recited by
claims 5 and 17. Ans. 49-50.
Appellants argue that Ashraf does not teach or suggest the limitation
recited by claims 5 and 17. Appeal Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 8-9. We agree
with Appellants. The Examiner does not explain, nor do we see in the cited
portion of Ashraf, how Ashraf discloses "at least one MS includes" the MSs
in ascending order as recited in claims 5 and 17. Instead, the cited portion of
Ashraf indicates that the disclosed calculations are made by the "local base
station." See, e.g., Ashraf ,I 63 ("FIG. 5 is a flow chart illustrating the
operation of each base station when performing load balancing updates.").
8
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's finding that claims 5 and
17 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 6 and 18
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 6 and 18 wherein
determining the expected data rate gains of the plurality of MSs
comprising determining expected data rate gains of the at least
one MS, an MS group not belonging to the at least one MS
among MSs connected to the BS, an MS group connected to a
neighbor BS using a same frequency, or an MS group
connected to a neighbor BS using a different frequency. 4
Final Act. 7, 13 (citing Ashraf,I 71). According to the Examiner, Ashraf
teaches
a step to pick a mobile receiver R3 with the second lowest P rx,
i.e. P rx,L, and where this value is subsequenty utilized in (P rx,L -
P"tx,u) > 11.. to ascertain whether or not pilot power update Ptx,u is
sufficient to perform a coordinated and optimized coverage that
can improve the data rates and communication quality of
multiple mobile receivers,
which is "substantively the same as" the limitation recited by claims 6 and
18. Ans. 50---51.
Appellants argue that Ashraf "merely discloses how to pick the
mobile receiver R3 based on the power difference," which is not equivalent
to the limitation recited by claims 6 and 18. Appeal Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9-
10. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not explain, nor do we
see in the cited portion of Ashraf, how Ashraf discloses the limitation recited
in claims 6 and 18. In particular, the Examiner focuses on lines 8 and 9 of
4 Although not identical, the language of claim 18 's limitation is
substantively the same.
9
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
the algorithm disclosed in Ashraf' s paragraph 71. Final Act. 7; Ans. 22-23.
It is, however, unclear how those particular lines of the algorithm disclose
wherein the determining the expected data rate gains of the
plurality of MSs comprising determining expected data rate
gains of the at least one MS, an MS group not belonging to the
at least one MS among MSs connected to the BS, an MS group
connected to a neighbor BS using a same frequency, or an MS
group connected to a neighbor BS using a different frequency.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's finding that claims 6 and
18 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 7 and 19
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 7 and 19 "wherein the expected data rate gains are a change in a sum
of date rates before and after the handover." Final Act. 7, 13 ( citing Ashraf
,r 71 ). According to the Examiner, "[ w ]hen Routine 2:
Dec_Pwr_ Underloaded of Ashraf determines whether if (P rx,L - P tx,u) > 11.,
this ascertains whether or not pilot power update P tx,u is sufficient to perform
a coordinated and optimized coverage that can improve the data rates and
communication quality of multiple mobile receivers of a group of base
stations," which is "substantively the same as" the limitation recited by
claims 7 and 19. Ans. 52-53.
Appellants argue that Ashraf "merely discloses a difference between
two power levels is greater than a specific value," which is not equivalent to
the limitation recited by claims 7 and 19. Appeal Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 10-
11. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not explain, nor do we
see in the cited portion of Ashraf, how Ashraf discloses the limitation recited
in claims 7 and 19. In particular, the Examiner focuses on line 10 of the
algorithm disclosed in Ashraf's paragraph 71. Final Act. 7; Ans. 23-24. It
10
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
is, however, unclear how that particular line of the algorithm discloses
"wherein the expected data rate gains are a change in a sum of date rates
before and after the handover."
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's finding that claims 7 and
19 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 8 and 20
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 8 and 20
wherein controlling the TX power comprises controlling the TX
power by selecting a case corresponding to a largest sum of
expected data rate gains from a group of cases that includes at
least one of a first sum of expected data rate gains in a case of
increasing the TX power, a second sum of expected data rate
gains in a case of decreasing the TX power, or a third sum of
expected data rate gains in a case of maintaining the TX
power. 5
Final Act. 7-8, 14 (citing Ashraf,I 71). According to the Examiner, "[w]hen
Routine 2: Dec_Pwr_Underloaded of Ashraf determines whether if (Prx,L-
Ptx,u) > 11., then the base station pilot transmission power Ptx is updated as Ptx
= Ptx -Ptx,u, to cause the base station to drop a user through handover with a
nearby base station, and causing coordinated and optimized coverage to
improve data rates and communication quality of mobile receivers served by
the group of base stations," which is "substantively the same as" the
limitation recited by claims 8 and 20. Ans. 53-54.
Appellants argue "[ m ]erely selecting a transmit power based on a
status of base station and power difference as cited in Ashraf does not teach
or suggest" the limitation recited by claims 8 and 20. Appeal Br. 23-24;
5 Although not identical, the language of claim 20's limitation is
substantively the same.
11
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
Reply Br. 10-11. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner does not
explain, nor do we see in the cited portion of Ashraf, how Ashraf discloses
the limitation recited in claims 8 and 20. Appeal Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 11-
12. In particular, the Examiner focuses on lines 10-13 of the algorithm
disclosed in Ashrafs paragraph 71. Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 54--55. It is,
however, unclear how that particular line of the algorithm discloses the
limitation recited by claims 8 and 20.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's finding that claims 8 and
20 would have been obvious over a combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 9 and 21
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 9 and 21 "wherein a TX power mode for the TX power includes at
least two of modes selected from a group of modes including at least one of
increasing, decreasing, or maintaining the TX power." Final Act. 8, 14
(citing Ashraf Fig. 5, ,r,r 64, 67). According to the Examiner, "[t]he
determination at step S40 in FIG. 5 of Ashraf current user load Lo,k to
determine whether to decrease transmission power by selecting step S70 or
step S80, or increase transmission power by selecting step S50" is
"substantively the same as" the limitation recited by claims 9 and 21. Ans.
54--55.
We agree with the Examiner that Ashraf' s discloses several power
modes including increasing and decreasing TX power. Ashraf,I 67.
Appellants' conclusory assertion that Ashraf discloses "the base station
determined the current load of the base station based on the number of active
users and the transmission bandwidth," which does not teach or suggest the
limitation recited by claims 9 and 21 is not persuasive. Appeal Br. 26;
Reply Br. 13.
12
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 9 and 21 would have been obvious over a
combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 10 and 22
The Examiner relies on Park as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 10 and 22
wherein controlling the TX power comprises controlling the TX
power by selecting a case corresponding to a largest sum of
expected data rate gains from a group of cases including at least
one of a first sum of expected data rate gains in a case of
controlling the TX power according to a selected TX power
mode or a second sum of expected data rate gains in a case of
maintaining the TX power without a handover of the at least
one MS. 6
Final Act. 25-28 (citing Park Figs. 3, 4, 4:31-5:11). According to the
Examiner,
Park teaches that at step 120 it is determined whether a total
load of the neighboring cells in the second layer is greater than
a maximum value or not, and this is substantively the same as a
second sum of expected data rate gains in a case of
maintaining the TX power without a handover of the at least
oneMS
and also
at step 133, the information on the load retrieved is summed,
and if it is determined that the operation of summing the load
has been completed at this step (S 134), the cell group with
minimum load is selected at step 135, and this is substantively
the same as a first sum of expected data rate gains in a case of
controlling the TX power according to the selected TX power
mode.
Ans. 55-57.
6 Although not identical, the language of claim 22 's limitation is
substantively the same.
13
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
We agree with the Examiner that Ashraf discloses the limitation
recited by claims 10 and 22. Park Figs. 3, 4, 4:31-5: 11. Appellants'
conclusory assertion that Park "merely [discloses] controlling an overload in
an overloaded cell," which does not teach or suggest the limitation recited by
claims 10 and 22 is not persuasive. Appeal Br. 27-29; Reply Br. 20-22.
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 10 and 22 would have been obvious over a
combination of Ashraf, Law, and Park.
Claims 11 and 23
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 11 and 23 "acquiring measurement information of MSs and state
information of base stations (BSs)."7 Final Act. 8, 14--15 (citing Ashraf Fig.
5, ,r,r 68, 71 ). According to the Examiner, Ashraf teaches (1) "a
determination is made of whether other base stations within a group are able
to carry on a certain load," which is "substantively the same as acquiring
state information of base stations (BSs)" and (2) "a step to calculate a
RPSS difference value for each connected mobile receiver," which is
"substantively the same as acquiring measurement information of MSs."
Ans. 57-58.
We agree with the Examiner that Ashraf discloses acquiring
measurement information of MSs and state information of BSs. Ashraf
,r,r 68, 71. Appellants' conclusory assertion that Ashraf "merely
determin[ es] the overload status based on a value comparing the current user
load with a cell capacity of the base station," which does not teach or
7 Although not identical, the language of claim 23 's limitation is
substantively the same.
14
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
suggest the limitation recited by claims 11 and 23 is not persuasive. Appeal
Br. 29--30; Reply Br. 14--15.
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 11 and 23 would have been obvious over a
combination of Ashraf and Law.
Claims 12 and 2 4
The Examiner relies on Ashraf as teaching the limitation recited by
claims 12 and 24
wherein the measurement information includes at least one of a
received (RX) power of at least one BS measured by the MSs, a
received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of the at least one BS
measured by the MSs, an RX power of the MSs measured by
the at least one BS, or an RSSI of the MSs measured by the at
least one BS, and wherein the state information includes at
least one of a current TX power of the at least one BS or a
number of MSs connected to the at least one BS.
Final Act. 8-9, 15 (citing Ashraf Pig. 5, ,r,r 68, 71). According to the
Examiner, Ashraf teaches ( 1) "a determination is made of whether other
base stations within a group are able to carry on a certain load," which is
"substantively the same as state information includes a number of MSs
connected to the at least one BS" and (2) "a step to calculate a RPSS
difference value for each connected mobile receiver," which is
"substantively the same as measurement information includes a received
(RX) power of at least one BS measured by the MSs." Ans. 58-59.
We agree with the Examiner that Ashraf discloses measurement
information includes a received (RX) power of at least one BS measured by
the MSs and state information includes a current TX power of the at least
one BS and a number ofMSs connected to the at least one BS. Ashraf
,r,r 68, 71. Appellants' conclusory assertion that Ashraf "merely
15
Appeal2018-002998
Application 13/299,316
determin[ es] the overload status based on a value comparing the current user
load with a cell capacity of the base station," which does not teach or
suggest the limitation recited by claims 12 and 24 is not persuasive. Appeal
Br. 30-32; Reply Br. 15-17.
Appellants, therefore, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's finding that claims 12 and 24 would have been obvious over a
combination of Ashraf and Law.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 4,
9-13, 16, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we sustain these rejections.
The Examiner erred with respect to the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-8,
14, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combination of record, and we reverse those rejections.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 9-13, 16,
and 21-26.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-8, 14,
15, and 17-20.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16