Ex Parte Leng et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 9, 2016

12999972 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/999,972 12/17/2010
48116 7590 09/13/2016
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaobing Leng
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.
LUTZ 201212US01 9416
EXAMINER
CHO, HONG SOL
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2016 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):
docketing@faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOBING LENG, JIKANG WANG,
KAIBIN ZHANG, and SHAN JIN 1
Appeal2014-007331
Application 12/999 ,972
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON PENICK, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 22, 27, 58, and 63. The Examiner indicates that claims
1, 8-11, 15, 37, and 51 are allowable. Final Act. 2. Claims 2-7, 12-14, 16-
21, 23-26, 28-36, 38-50, 52-57, 59-62, and 64--72 are canceled. Amend. 2
and 4--9 (Oct. 17, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007331
Application 12/999,972
Invention
Appellants disclose the reconstructing of a network topology
according to traffic-related information in cells of the network. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 22, reproduced below with key limitations emphasizedi is
illustrative:
22. A method in a handover controlling device of a wireless
relay communication network, for aiding a management device
to reconstruct the network topology, said method comprising:
i. rece1vmg a handover notification from said
management device to notify said handover controlling device
to indicate at least one stationary relay station or at least one
stationary relay station together with at least one mobile station
in the domination of said handover controlling device to
perform handover operation, said notification comprises the
handover related information of the neighboring cell to which
each stationary relay station or mobile station is going to be
handed over;
ii. according to said handover notification, respectively
notifying said at least one stationary relay station or at least
one stationary relay station together with at least one mobile
station to perform handover operation.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 22, 27, 58, and 63 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2007/0104148 Al; May 10,
2007). Final Act. 2.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Kang discloses "notifying said at least
one stationary relay station or at least one stationary relay station together
2
Appeal2014-007331
Application 12/999,972
with at least one mobile station to perform handover operation," as recited in
claim 22?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 22, the Examiner finds Kang's description of a relay
station that relays a handover request of a mobile relay station (MRS)
discloses all of the recitations. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Kang Fig. 6, i-fi-f 19,
88); Ans. 2 (citing Kang i-f 19).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because Kang merely
discloses that relay stations can be fixed, but that the handover request
description in Kang relates to a handover request generated by a mobile
relay station, rather than a stationary relay station receiving a notification to
perform a handover operation in the manner recited. App. Br. 5-6; Reply
Br. 3--4.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred. Kang' s Figure 6
illustrates hmv a relay station receives and relays a mobile station handover
request from a mobile station to a base station, with a response to the mobile
station and an indication to the base station subsequently relayed. However,
the Examiner's findings do not show how this discloses a stationary relay
station that receives a notification to perform a handover operation- a
stationary relay station that merely relays a request does not suffice for the
claimed notification to perform the handover operation. Therefore, the
Examiner's findings do not show Kang discloses "notifying said at least one
stationary relay station or at least one stationary relay station together with at
least one mobile station to perform handover operation," as recited in claim
22.
3
Appeal2014-007331
Application 12/999,972
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 22, and claim 58, which contains a similar recitation and
which is similarly rejected by the Examiner. Claims 27 and 63 are directed
respectively to a method and apparatus in a stationary relay station that
include "receiving a handover notification from a management device or a
handover controlling device." These claims are similarly rejected by the
Examiner. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 27 and 63 for the reasons discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 22, 27, 58, and
63.
REVERSED
4