Ex Parte Kroth et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesDec 22, 201110499540 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 22, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation