Ex Parte KUBOTA et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2019

13491681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/491,681 06/08/2012
71799 7590
Mr. Jira Hashimoto
NEC-IAC
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
SUITE 800
Washington, DC 20037-3213
02/04/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
MITSUHIRO KUBOTA
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.
J-12-0045 2745
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2019 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):
necipca@necam.com
jiro.hashimoto@necam.com
necipc_shien@nepas.jp.nec.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITSUHIRO KUBOTA and HID EN ORI KA TO
Appeal2018-006549
Application 13/491,681
Technology Center 2400
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 13-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NEC Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006549
Application 13/491,681
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to
An integrative radio base station hold[ing] station data
required for operation including information on the cell managed
by itself and the information on the cells managed by an adjacent
integrative radio base stations. If information on the cells of the
destination of a mobile terminal is not held at the time of the
handover of the mobile terminal, the information is acquired
from a station data management device. The station data
management device manages station data for each integrative
radio base station and transmits information on the cell requested
from the integrative radio base station to a source that made the
request.
Abstract.
Claim 13 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
13. A radio base station comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a measurement result of
reception quality from a mobile station;
a processor configured to make a determination, based on
the measurement result, to perform a handover of the mobile
station, wherein the processor is configured to specify one target
cell of the handover;
a table configured to store at least one adjacent cell
information that identifies the one target cell of the handover,
wherein the one target cell is adjacent to a cell of the radio base
station;
an interface configured to be connected to a neighboring
base station managing the one target cell, and to exchange
information for the handover with the neighboring base station;
a transmitter configured to transmit, to a node managing
the radio base station, a notification of the at least one adjacent
cell information; and
a second receiver configured to receive, from the node,
information to update the at least one adjacent cell information,
wherein, based on the information to update the at least
one adjacent cell information, a new adjacent cell information is
added to the at least one adjacent cell information stored in the
2
Appeal2018-006549
Application 13/491,681
table or at least one adjacent cell information is deleted from the
at least one adjacent cell information stored in the table.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Berra (US 2005/0153743 Al; pub. July 14, 2005), Son (US
2005/0101328 Al; pub. May 12, 2005), and Nakada (US 2005/0255890 Al;
Nov. 17, 2005). Final Act. 3-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Berra and Nakada. Final Act. 13-20.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON BERRA, SON
AND NAKADA
Claims 13 and 15
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 13 and 15 as unpatentable over Berra, Son, and
Nakada.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Nakada
teaches the recited second receiver limitations. Namely, Appellants
maintain that Nadaka's system does not "receive, from [a node managing the
one target cell], information to update the at least one adjacent cell
information, wherein, based on the information to update the at least one
adjacent cell information, a new adjacent cell information is added to the at
least one adjacent cell information stored in the table or at least one adjacent
cell information is deleted from the at least one adjacent cell information
stored in the table," as required by claim 13. See App. Br. 9-11.
3
Appeal2018-006549
Application 13/491,681
According to Appellants, Nakada discloses setting information
transmitted to the radio base station device for only that radio base station
device, not adjacent cells. Reply Br 6-7. For example, Appellants argue
The setting information disclosed by Nakada includes
setting information used to set communication configurations
for the CDMA radio base station device 1, which may include
the management ID of the CDMA radio base station device 1,
the ID of the radio base station controller 5 which manages the
CDMA radio base station device 1, the used frequency of the
CDMA radio base station device 1, the cell radius of the
CDMA radio base station device 1, the spreading code
sequence information of the CDMA radio base station device 1,
and the maximum signal transmission level of the CDMA radio
base station device 1.
[]Nakada fails to teach or suggest that the setting
information includes any information related to any adjacent
cell. Rather, the setting information of Nakada is entirely
related to the CDMA radio base station device 1, which itself is
the recipient of the setting information.
Reply Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 5---6 (discussing Nakada i-fi-fl34-138).
Appellants are correct that paragraphs 134--138 of Nakada disclose
using adjacent cell information to determine the setting information for the
radio base station device based on the communication configurations for the
existing radio base station devices around the estimated location. See, e.g.,
Nakada ,r 138. However, as the Examiner points out, Nakada also describes
that the radio base station information register selects for the newly
connected radio base station device the radio frequency that is used by
adjacent radio base station devices. Nakada ,r 124; Final Act. 7; Ans. 23.
Nakada further explains that "[w]ith this assignment of the frequency, soft
handover can be performed with adjacent cells." Id. Nakada's base station
device, thus, updates or adds the radio frequency of adjacent cells as
4
Appeal2018-006549
Application 13/491,681
received from the radio base station information register by setting the radio
frequency to be able to perform soft handover with adjacent cells. We are
not persuaded of error, then, in the Examiner's determination that these
teachings of Nakada together with Berra's teaching of a table maintaining
information about adjacent cells for handover (see Ans. 21) teach or suggest
the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 13
and 15 as unpatentable over Berra, Son, and Nakada.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON BERRA AND
NAKADA
Claims 14 and 16
Appellants do not argue separately the patentability of claims 14 and
16. Instead, Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for claim 13.
See Reply Br. 11. As discussed above, we find these arguments
unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's decision to reject
claims 14 and 16 as unpatentable over Berra and Nakada.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 13-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a).
AFFIRMED
5