Ex Parte Johansson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12673031 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/673,031 02/11/2010
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Magnus Johansson
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.
P23145 USl 5025
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TUX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAGNUS JOHANSSON and
MAGNUSGANNHOLM
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STR .. A .. USS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
17-32, 34, and 36. Claims 1-16, 33, and 35 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to updating system information between
neighboring base stations in a cellular system. Spec., Abstract. Claims 17
and 18, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed subject matter:
1 7. A method for use in a wireless cellular telecommunications
system in which system there is a plurality of cells each of which
can accommodate a number of users with mobile terminals
(MSs ), and in which system there is also a plurality of Base
Stations (BSs) with the traffic to and from the MSs in a first cell
being routed via a first BS and in which system an MS can be
handed over from said first BS to a second BS of a second cell in
the system, comprising the steps of:
informing, by the second BS to the first BS that an update
has taken place in the system information of the second BS,
wherein the informing step occurs independently of a
determination that one or more MSs is to be handed over from
said first BS to said second BS;
acquiring, by the first BS, the updated system information
of the second BS;
transmitting, by the first BS, at least part of the updated
system information of the second BS to MSs in the cell of the
first BS; and
wherein the updated system information comprises an
updated Configuration Change Counts (CCC) of one or more of
a control message for an uplink and a control message for a
downlink.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein said updated system
information is requested by the first BS from the second BS as
2
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
a result of a message from the second BS that its system
information has been updated.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ryu US 2008/0051087 Al Feb.28,2008
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 17-32, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Ryu. Final Act. 2--4.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1. Ryu's neighboring base stations (BSs, i.e., the second base station of
claim 17) send only requested information upon request by a serving base
station (i.e., first base station) but fail to disclose "the second BS
inform[ s] the first BS that an update has taken place in the system
information of the second BS [and, t]hen, after the first BS has been
informed, the first BS acquires the updated system information" as
required by claim 17. App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).
2. "There is absolutely no disclosure [by Ryu] of 'an updated Configuration
Change Counts' or that the CCC applies to a control message for an
uplink or a downlink" as required by claim 17. App. Br. 7 (emphasis
omitted).
3. Ryu fails to disclose the limitations of dependent claims 18 and 24. App.
Br. 8.
3
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. In connection with the independent
claims, we disagree with Appellants' conclusions and adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2--4); (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief
(Ans. 3-5) and; (3) concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
However, in connection with dependent claims 18 and 24, we agree with
Appellants' conclusions. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Independent claims 17 and 23
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue, rather than a
second base station initiating the acquisition of system information by first
informing a first base station an update has taken place, Ryu requires the
first base station to request information from the second base station, which
then responds with only the requested information. App. Br. 6. Appellants
argue, although Ryu discloses a second base station sends updated
information when a change occurs, claim 1 7 requires, and Ryu fails to
disclose, a step of (i) the second base station informing the first base station
of an update before (ii) the first base station acquires the updated
information. Id.
The Examiner responds by finding Ryu's second and third
embodiments do not require the first (or serving) base station to request
update information and, instead, periodically transmit update information
without a request. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds the broadest
4
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
reasonable inte1 vretation of "acquiring," as recited in claim 17, includes
receiving the updated information but does not require a step of requesting
the information. Id. Therefore, according to the Examiner, Appellants'
argument that the first (or serving) base station must be informed of the
existence of the update before requesting the updated system information is
not persuasive of error. Id. Accordingly, the Examiner relies on Ryu's
response to the neighbor base station information request, step S414, for
disclosing both the informing and acquiring steps of claim 17. Final Act. 3
(citing Ryu, Fig. 4).
We find Appellants' contention unpersuasive of Examiner error. We
agree with the Examiner that the acquiring step of claim 17 does not require
the first base station request the updated system information, only that the
updated system information be received by the first base station.
Furthermore, we disagree the informing step must occur before the acquiring
step as argued by Appellants. Instead the two steps may be performed
simultaneously such that the step of receiving updated system information
by the first base station both (i) informs the first base station that an update
has occurred and (ii) has the first base station acquiring the update. We
further conclude claim 17 does not exclude a precursor step of having the
first base station make an information request to the second base station.
Accordingly, Appellants' argument that Ryu is deficient because it includes
an additional step of requesting information from the second base station
(App. Br. 6) is not commensurate in scope with claim 17 and, therefore, is
not persuasive of Examiner error. Because claim 1 7 does not exclude an
initial information request by the first base station, we need not address
whether Ryu's second and third embodiments (which provide updated
5
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
system information without the first base station sending an information
request) independently anticipate or, in combination with Ryu's first
embodiment, render obvious the argued limitations.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue "Ryu fails to
disclose 'wherein the updated system information comprises an updated
Configuration Change Counts (CCC) of one or more of a control message
for an uplink and a control message for a downlink."' App. Br. 7.
According to Appellants, although Ryu discloses sending a configuration
change count, there is no disclosure that it is an updated configuration
change count or that it applies to a control message for an uplink or a
downlink. Id. The Examiner responds by finding Ryu discloses a
configuration change count is incremented each time the information for the
neighbor base station has changed and that the configuration change count is
part of a control message transmitted by the neighbor base station. Ans. 4--5
(citing Ryu i-fi-1 44, 48, 50, and 51 ).
Appellants' contention 2 is unpersuasive of Examiner error. We find
Ryu's configuration change count is updated by being "incremented each
time the information for the associated neighbor base station has changed."
Ryu i1 51. Therefore, Ryu discloses an updated configuration change count
(CCC.) Furthermore, because Ryu discloses the configuration change count
is part of a control message (Ans. 4 (citing Ryu i148)), we find Appellants'
argument that "[ t ]here is absolutely no disclosure ... that the CCC applies to
a control message for an uplink or a downlink" (App. Br. 7) unresponsive to
the Examiner's findings in connection with Ryu (see discussion supra) and,
therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error.
6
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in connection with claim 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 17 and, for the same reasons, the rejection of independent
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ryu together with
the rejections of dependent claims 21, 22, 26-32, 34, and 36, which are not
argued separately.
Dependent claims 18 and 24
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue "[t]here is
absolutely no disclosure that any request in Ryu by the serving base station
[first base station] is a result of a message from the neighbor base station
[second base station] that its system information has been updated." App.
Br. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner cites to Ryu i-f 43 for disclosing the
disputed limitation (Final Act. 3), further finding "[a person of] ordinary
skill in the art would appreciate that update information has been updated
before a transmission" and "[a] base station acquires the update information
after the information has been transmitted" (Ans. 5).
We find Appellants' argument persuasive of Examiner error. In
particular, we are unable to identify disclosure of, nor has the Examiner
persuasively explained why Ryu discloses, the updated system information
is requested by the first base station from the second base station as a result
of a message from the second BS that its system information has been
updated. Although the Examiner finds Ryu discloses periodic updates
and/or updates on demand, we are unable to identify updates requested as a
result of a message that the system has been updated. Therefore, on the
7
Appeal2014-009874
Application 12/673,031
record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 18 and
24 nor the rejection of claims 19, 20, and 25, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 18-20, 24, and 25 is
reversed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 17, 21-23, 26-32, 34, and 36
is affirmed.
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
8