Ex Parte Kalhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

14358354 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017)

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.
14/358,354 05/15/2014 Amit Kalhan TUTL 00210 2193
32968 7590 12/01/2017
KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
8611 Balboa Ave
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
EXAMINER
BROCKMAN, ANGEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2017 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):
KII-USPatents @ kyocera.com
Kathleen .Connell@kyocera.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIT KALHAN, HENRY CHANG,
DOUGLAS DUNN,
and
DAVID COMSTOCK
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and systems for handover
(HO) signaling in a cellular communication system using a target node
configured to transmit HO information to a user equipment (UE) over at
least one Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network (MBSFN)
subframe, in response to a HO request that corresponds to the UE presently
served by another (source) node (Abstract).
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A cellular communication system, comprising:
a source node configured to transfer a handover (HO)
request to a target node, the HO request corresponding to a user
equipment (UE) presently being served by the source node; and
the target node configured to transmit HO information to
the UE over a Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network
(MBSFN) subframe in response to the HO request.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hsu (US 2011/0305183 Al; published
Dec. 15,2011).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 7—11, 14, 15, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsu and
Balasubramanian (US 2009/0129341 Al; published May 21, 2009).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 4, 16, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsu, Balasubramanian, and
Malladi (US 2008/0225796 Al; published Sept. 18, 2008).
2
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 5,12, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsu, Balasubramanian, and
Jading (US 2010/0315963 Al; published Dec. 16, 2010).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hsu, Balasubramanian, and
Huang (US 2008/0268833 Al; published Oct. 30, 2008).1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner, among other things, finds Hsu teaches a “target node
configured to transmit HO [handover] information to the UE over a
Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe in
response to the HO request,” as recited in claim 1 (Final Act. 2—3 (citing
Hsu 9, 29, 31, 34, 37); Ans. 2—3 (citing Hsu Fig. 3)). We do not agree.
We agree with Appellants’ arguments that Hsu does not anticipate
Appellants’ claim 1 (App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2-4). Particularly, we agree
Hsu’s “target eNB35 repaying] the MBMS information of the target cell to
source eNB34” (see Hsu 134) merely discloses a target node transmitting
handover information to a source node in contrast to Appellants’ “target
node configured to transmit HO information to the UE” (App. Br. 8).
Further, Hsu’s paragraph 37 merely discloses a source node eNB
transmitting a handover request to a selected target cell and transmitting a
handover command to the UE, but does not disclose a target node
1 The Examiner rejects the limitations of claim 6 but erroneously refers to
claim 8 on page 9 of the Final Action (see Final Act. 9). Thus, we interpret
the rejection based upon Hsu, Balasubramanian, and Huang to refer to claim
6, not 8, and is harmless error.
3
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
transmitting handover information to the UE as required by claim 1 (Reply
Br. 2).
We also disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Hsu’s “target node
(eNB) transmits infor[m]ation for handover to occur, the MBMS
information includes an MBSFN area id” and “includes the MBSFN
subframe” (Ans. 2 (citing Hsu 137)). Hsu does not teach a target node
transmitting handover information to the UE over a MBSFN subframe as
required by claim 1; rather, Hsu merely teaches “a source eNB acquires
MBMS information [including MBSFN area ID] of neighbor cells” and “the
source eNB acquires MBMS reception and/or interest status information of a
UE” (see Hsu 137 (emphases added)).
The Examiner further cites to Hsu’s paragraph 31 and step 311 in
Hsu’s Figure 3 (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3). Although Hsu’s paragraph 31 states
“UE33 performs ranging and network reentry procedure with target eNB35
(step 309)” it does not teach that “the ranging and network reentry procedure
performed by the UE33 with target eNB35 involves the target eNB35
transmitting handover information to the UE over a Multicast Broadcast
Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe” as required by claim 1
(App. Br. 8). Hsu’s step 311 does not remedy these deficiencies because
step 311 does not transmit any handover information to the UE, as claim 1
requires. Rather, “the handover procedure of Hsu is fully completed upon
establishment of the data connection described at step 310” before step 311
(Reply Br. 4).
As the Examiner has not shown, nor have we found, that Hsu teaches
a target node configured to communicate handover information directly to a
UE over a MBSFN subframe, responsive to a handover request, as recited in
4
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
claim 1 and similarly in claim 13, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 and 13 as anticipated by Hsu.
With respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 9, Hsu discloses a target node—the claimed “cellular system node”
not currently serving the UE—configured to transmit handover information
to the UE over a MBSFN subframe (Ans. 2—3; Final Act. 6). As discussed
supra with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded that Hsu teaches a target
node configured to communicate handover information directly to a UE over
a MBSFN subframe.
The Examiner also finds “Balasubramanian discloses ‘a means for
transmitting handover information to the UE over a Multicast Broadcast
Signal Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe based on the at least one
physical level transmission” (Ans. 2 (citing Balasubramanian || 43, 45—46)).
However, Balasubramanian does not disclose MBSFN subframes and does
not teach transmitting handover information over a MBSFN subframe
(Reply Br. 5). Balasubramanian also suffers from the same deficiency as
Hsu as Balasubramanian’s target node (e.g., femto node 304, target access
point 106) sends a handover message to the source node (e.g., macro access
point 306, source access point 104), not to the user equipment (e.g., access
terminal 302, 102) served by the source node (App. Br. 11 (citing
Balasubramanian | 68); see also Balasubramanian 140).
Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 9.
The Examiner has also not shown how the additional teachings of
Malladi, Jading, and Huang make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Hsu
and Balasubramanian. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
5
Appeal 2017-006341
Application 14/358,354
obviousness rejections of claims 2—8, 10-12, and 14—20 depending, directly
or indirectly, from independent claims 1, 9, and 13.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
6