Ex Parte Kang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2017

12522943 (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.
12/522,943 06/23/2010 Hyun-Jeong Kang 0201-0229 4629
68103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
SMITH, JOSHUA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUN-JEONG KANG, HYOUNG-KYU LIM,
JUNG-JE SON, YEONG-MOON SON, SUNG-JIN LEE,
JAE-HYUK JANG, JAE-HEE CHO, and MIN-HEE CHO
Appeal 2017-005810
Application 12/522,9431
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 48—50, 53—55, 58—60, 63—65, 72, and 73, which are all of the claims
pending in the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—47, 51, 52, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, 67, 75, and 76 have been cancelled.
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 2).
2 The Examiner has stated claim 74 would be allowable if written into
independent form (Final Act. 56). Furthermore, the Examiner has
withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 68—71 (Ans. 28).
Appeal 2017-005810
Application 12/522,943
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to method and
system for a base station (BS) to transmit frequency assignment (FA)
messages to a mobile station (MS). Abstract. Claim 48, reproduced below,
is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
48. A method for changing frequency assignment (FA) by a
base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the
method comprising:
transmitting, to a mobile station (MS), an FA changing
message using a serving primary FA, the FA changing message
indicating the MS to change the serving primary FA to a target
primary FA, which is one of a plurality of FAs managed by the
BS; and
if a response message in a response to the FA changing
message is received from the MS, changing the serving primary
FA to the target primary FA at a time according to start time
information about a data communication,
wherein the FA changing message includes index
information of the target primary FA and the start time
information about the data communication, and
wherein the start time information comprises information
about a start time of the data communication in the target primary
FA.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Csapo
Cho et al.
US 2005/0260999 Al Nov. 24, 2005
US 2007/0010251 Al Jan. 11, 2007
2
Appeal 2017-005810
Application 12/522,943
REJECTION
Claims 48—50, 53—55, 58—60, 63—65, 72 and 73 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho and Csapo (Final Act.
26-56).
ISSUE
Appellants contend their invention as recited in independent claims
48, 53, 58, and 63, is patentable over Cho and Csapo (App. Br. 5—8). The
issue presented by the arguments is:
Has the Examiner shown Cho teaches or suggests an “FA changing
message indicating the MS to change the serving primary FA to a target
primary FA,” as recited in claim 48 and similarly recited in claims 53, 58,
and 63?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Cho teaches an “FA
changing message indicating the MS to change the serving primary FA to a
target primary FA,” as recited in claim 48 and similarly recited in claims 53,
58, and 63 (App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 2-A). Specifically, Appellants argue
Cho’s messages do not indicate an MS to change FAs because “Cho’s
MOB_NBR_ADV message may not result in a handover” (App. Br. 6) and
the “MOB_NBR _ADV message merely provides advertisement
information” (Reply Br. 3).
We are persuaded. The Examiner finds Cho teaches that a BS sends a
Mobile Neighbor Advertisement (MOB_NBR_ADV) message to an MS and
that the MOB_NBR_ADV message “includes a plurality of Information
Elements” which provide information about neighboring BSs and FAs (Final
3
Appeal 2017-005810
Application 12/522,943
Act. 27 (citing Cho H 9—18, Figs. 1—2)). The Examiner further finds Cho’s
BS also “sends a Mobile Scanning Interval Allocation Response
(MOB_SCN_RSP) message including scanning information and allocating a
non-zero scan duration to the MS” (id.).
Although we agree with the Examiner that a message “indicating the
MS to change” does not “require that the MS will absolutely perform a
change” (Ans. 29), Cho’s MOB_NBR_ADV and MOB_SCN_RSP
messages do not indicate any change in any manner. Instead, Cho’s
MOB_NBR_ADV and MOB_SCN_RSP messages provide information to
the MS. Specifically, Cho’s MOB_NBR_ADV message provides
information about neighboring BSs and FAs (Cho 112, Tables 1A—1C), but
the existence of neighbor information is not an indication to the MS to
change to those neighboring BSs or FAs. Similarly, Cho’s MOB_SCN_RSP
message provides scanning information regarding “the quality of reference
signals from the neighbor BSs” (Cho H 13—16, Tables 2—3), but the
existence of scanning information is not an indication to the MS to change to
neighboring BSs or FAs. Furthermore, even if the MOB_NBR_ADV and
MOB_SCN_RSP messages provide information that a MS considers before
performing a handover (Ans. 28—29; see Cho 118) and even if the
MOB_NBR_ADV and MOB_SCN_RSP messages only provide information
about a single neighboring BS (Ans. 28—29), the information provided does
not indicate — e.g., recommend, suggest, signal, point out, solicit — to the
MS to make a change. Instead, Cho’s MS considers the MOB_NBR_ADV
and MOB_SCN_RSP information in deciding whether it should change the
FA (Cho 1117—18). We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the
Examiner errs in finding either Cho’s MOB_NBR_ADV or
4
Appeal 2017-005810
Application 12/522,943
MOB_SCN_RSP messages teach or suggest an “FA changing message
indicating the MS to change the serving primary FA to a target primary FA,”
as recited in claim 48 and similarly recited in claims 53, 58, and 63.3
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments
(see App. Br. 6—7). In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 48, 53, 58, and 63 and
dependent claims 49, 50, 54, 55, 59, 60, 64, 65, 72, and 73, which depend
directly or indirectly from claims 48, 53, 58, and 63, over the combination of
Cho and Csapo.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 48—50, 53—55, 58—60, 63—65, 72
and 73 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cho and Csapo
is reversed.
REVERSED
3 We note that Cho’s BS also sends a “Mobile BS Handover Response
(MOB_BSHO_RSP) message” which “includ[es] information about the
recommended target BSs” for which the MS is to change. Cho 27—28,
Table 8 (emphases added). However, the Examiner has not cited Cho’s
MOB_BSHO_RSP message; therefore, that issue is not before us.
5