Ex Parte Kroth et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 22, 2011

10499540 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2011)

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.
10/499,540 06/21/2004 Norbert Kroth 1454.1553 3518
21171 7590 12/23/2011
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
RUTKOWSKI, JEFFREY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NORBERT KROTH and JORG SCHNIEDENHAM
____________

Appeal 2009-011069
Application 10/499,540
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAYLAN K. DESHPANDE,
and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 19-22. Claims 1-18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-011069
Application 10/499,540

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to relaying transmission of data packets
from a first radio cell to a second one along with transferring the status
information from a base station associated with the first cell to the base
station associated with the second cell (see Spec. ¶ [0011]).
Claim 19 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
19. A method for packet switched transmission of data
packets containing useful information, comprising:
transmitting at least a portion of the data packets from a base
station associated with a first radio cell to a subscriber station;
storing the data packets received from the base station
associated with the first radio cell at the subscriber station in an
intermediate storage unit;
applying an ARQ method to said data packets and then
forwarding said data packets to a subsequent link control layer for
further processing;
storing status information at the base station associated with the
first radio cell, the status information relating to the content of the
intermediate storage unit of the subscriber station; and
when the subscriber station moves to a second radio cell,
handing over the transmission of data packets from the first radio cell
to the second radio cell, reinitializing the status information in the
base station associated with the second radio cell, and forwarding the
data packets in the intermediate storage unit of the subscriber station
to a subsequent link control layer for further processing without
further applying the ARQ method.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Ayanoglu US 5,570,367 Oct. 29, 1996
Hamalainen US 5,729,541 Mar. 17, 1998
Roobol US 6,301,479 B1 Oct. 9, 2001

Appeal 2009-011069
Application 10/499,540

3
Claims 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ayanoglu, Roobol, and Hamalainen.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)? The issue specifically turns on whether the combination of
references teaches or suggests “applying an ARQ method to said data
packets and then forwarding said data packets to a subsequent link control
layer for further processing” and “when the subscriber station moves to a
second radio cell, handing over the transmission of data packets from the
first radio cell to the second radio cell, reinitializing the status information
… and forwarding the data packets in the intermediate storage unit of the
subscriber station to a subsequent link control layer,” as recited in claim 19.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 19, Appellants argue that the cited portion in
column 8, lines 50-62 of Roobol does not disclose reinitializing with respect
to the claimed packet status information which is missing in Ayanoglu
where the hand-off is transparent and packets are transferred to the new base
station without reinitializing the status information (App. Br. 12-13).
Appellants further assert that Roobol, as described in column 9, lines 1-5,
communicates data through a tunneling state after a handover is performed
which indicates the packets are forwarded to the subsequent layer without
performing ARQ only after a handover has occurred (App. Br. 13; Reply Br.
4). Appellants conclude that the applied references do not discuss or suggest
all of the claimed features of claim 19 (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5).
Appeal 2009-011069
Application 10/499,540

4
In response, the Examiner asserts that Roobol states in column 9 that
no ARQ functions are performed during the “tunneling” state (Ans. 8) and
discloses in column 8 that reinitialized ARQ entities could also be used
during a handover (Ans. 9). The Examiner concludes that the relied-on
portions of Roobol suggest modifying Ayanoglu to provide the missing
claim features (id.).
We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 4-5) that the relied-on portions
of Roobol provide no teaching or suggestion related to forwarding the data
packets to the subsequent layer without performing ARQ during a handover.
As pointed out by Appellants (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5), while Roobol
discusses changing to a new network, the forwarding of packets and protocol
reconfiguration is done after a handover (see Roobol, col. 11, ll. 57-64).
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 21 and 22
without any specificity and merely repeat the claim features (App. Br. 13-
14). We note that independent claim 21 includes limitations similar to the
disputed features which we found to be absent from the prior art teachings.
However, independent claim 22 does not require data packet transfer and
protocol reconfiguration during a handover which requires handing over the
transmission of data packets from the first cell to the second cell and
reinitializing the status information in the base station of the second cell.
As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 19 and 21 but we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to
independent claim 22.

Appeal 2009-011069
Application 10/499,540

5
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 19 and 21, but we find no error in the rejection of claim 22.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 22, but not of
claims 19 and 22, or of claim 20 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 19-21 is reversed, but
affirmed with respect to rejecting claim 22.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc