Ex Parte Landais et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

10103102 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
10/103,102 03/22/2002 Bruno Landais Q69148 8529
59978 7590 04/03/2017
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
EXAMINER
JAIN, RAJ K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
patent @ csglaw. com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUNO LANDAIS and VINCENT MUNIERE
Appeal 2017-000780
Application 10/103,102
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 25—39, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2017-000780
Application 10/103,102
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “mobile radio system
access network equipment including means for coordinating resources for
circuit-switched mode services and packet-switched mode services.”
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 6, reproduced below, is representative of the
claimed subject matter:
6. A method of paging coordination, said method
comprising the steps of:
indicating by a radio access network equipment to mobile
stations that the radio access network equipment supports
paging coordination for the sending of circuit-switched mode
service paging messages to mobile stations, independently of
whether dual transfer mode (DTM) functionality is supported
by said radio access network equipment, in a network mode of
operation where paging coordination cannot be performed by a
core network, and,
upon receipt of said indication from the radio access
network equipment, the mobile stations in packet transfer mode
receive said circuit-switched mode service paging messages on
a Packet Associated Control Channel.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mazur US 6,463,054 B1 Oct. 8,2002
Sebire US 2004/0120302 A1 June 24, 2004
2
Appeal 2017-000780
Application 10/103,102
THE REJECTION
Claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 25—39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mazur, in view of Sebire. Final Act. 2.
ISSUES
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Mazur and Sebire teaches or suggests:
indicating . . . that the radio access network equipment supports
paging coordination for the sending of circuit-switched mode
service paging messages . . ., independently of whether dual
transfer mode (DTM) functionality is supported by said radio
access network equipment, in a network mode of operation
where paging coordination cannot be performed by a core
network,
as recited in claim 6.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, the Examiner erred because Mazur “says
nothing at all about the network sending an indication of whether or not it
supports paging coordination in a network mode of operation where paging
coordination cannot be performed by the core network, as is recited in all
independent claims” (App. Br. 11), and Mazur “sends no message saying
that it will support paging coordination even though its core network will not
provide it and independently of whether DTM functionality is supported”
(App Br. 14).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. While we agree with the
Examiner that in Mazur, “cell specific information being conveyed to the
mobile is independent of whether or not the DTM functionality is supported
3
Appeal 2017-000780
Application 10/103,102
or not” (Ans. 7 (citing Mazur 3:25—40)), we disagree with the Examiner’s
finding that the combination of references teaches or suggests an indication
of paging coordination “independently of whether dual transfer mode
(DTM) functionality ... in a network mode of operation where paging
coordination cannot be performed by a core network,” as appears in the
independent claims. This is because Mazur’s “support for paging” (Mazur
4:49—51 (cited at Final Act. 2)) does not disclose or suggest any paging
coordination with respect to modes of operation with respect to the core
network, and the Examiner’s findings regarding obviousness in the Answer
(see Ans. 7) do not address paging coordination with respect to modes of
operation with respect to the core network. One skilled in the art at the time
of Appellants’ invention would be aware of the operating modes in which
paging coordination can (NMO I) and cannot (NMO II and NMO III) be
performed by the core network, as argued by Appellants. See Reply Br. 4
(citing Spec. 4—6). Thus, the Examiner’s inherency finding that the RNC
“inherently” provides paging coordination (Ans. 7) (indicating the core
network provides paging coordination) is incorrect during use of operating
modes NMO II and NMO III by the core network. The addition of Sebire
does not cure the deficiencies of Mazur.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 6, 14, 15, and 25, and claims dependent therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mazur and Sebire
teaches or suggests:
4
Appeal 2017-000780
Application 10/103,102
indicating . . . that the radio access network equipment supports
paging coordination for the sending of circuit-switched mode
service paging messages . . ., independently of whether dual
transfer mode (DTM) functionality is supported by said radio
access network equipment, in a network mode of operation
where paging coordination cannot be performed by a core
network,
as recited in claim 6.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 25—
39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable is reversed.
REVERSED
5