Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2017

13971345 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 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.
13/971,345 08/20/2013 Yuping Li HW 81365655US10 1724
74365 7590 11/27/2017
Slater Matsil, LLP/HW/FW/HWC
17950 Preston Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/27/2017 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
docketing @ slatermatsil. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUPING LI, WEI WANG, BO FENG, LAN ZOU,
and KAI ZHANG
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 12, 22, 26, and 31—38, which are all
the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
communication network technologies. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1
is exemplary:
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
1. A self-optimization method, comprising:
acquiring, by a managed unit, attributes of self­
optimization created by a managing unit; and
executing, by the managed unit, self-optimization in
accordance with the attributes of the self-optimization;
wherein the attributes of the self-optimization comprises
an objective, an optimization detection granularity and an
optimization confirmation;
wherein the optimization detection granularity is used to
indicate a detection cycle of a performance measurement
indicator; and
wherein the optimization confirmation is used to set
whether the self-optimization is required to be confirmed
manually.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 12, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Quilty (US 7,453,890 B2, Nov. 18, 2008)
and Kafer (US 2009/0225678 Al, Sept. 10, 2009).
Claims 31, 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Quilty, Kafer, and Suerbaum (US
2011/0280157 Al, Nov. 17,2011).
Claims 32, 34, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Quilty, Kafer, and Nunzi (US
2010/0309799 Al, Dec. 9, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and agree with and
adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in (i) the action from
2
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are
consistent with our analysis below.
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants contend Quilty and Kafer do not collectively teach
“the optimization detection granularity is used to indicate a detection
cycle of a performance measurement indicator” or “attributes of the
self-optimization.” See App. Br. 5—7. In particular, Appellants argue
Claim 1 relates to tangible attributes received by the
managed unit, which describes at least a detection cycle
for the managed unit to perform measurement. Thus,
Quilty is directed to different definitions and functions for
the communication performance information than those
recited in Claim 1. This is because Quilty is directed to
monitoring a particular parameter of the communication
performance. Claim 1 recites executing a measurement
cycle using the in the attributes. Thus, the communication
performance information of Quilty instructs a system
regarding what parameter should be compared to a
threshold as the basis of reallocation execution, while the
attributes of Claim 1 indicate how to execute the self-
optimization.
In addition, the “time average” disclosed in Quilty
is also different from, and fails to anticipate or render
obvious, “the detection cycle for the managed unit to
perform measurement” recited claim 1. Namely,
communication performance information disclosed in
Quilty is the average occupied-switched channels within
certain time. Thus, the time average of Quilty is the time
that the average occupied-switched channels extends past
the thresholds. In contrast, the detection cycle for
performance measurement in claim 1 is one kind of the
time value between measuring the performance monitored
by the managed unit, which has no relationship with the
3
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
time that average occupied-switched channels exceeds a
threshold.
App. Br. 6—7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides further findings
showing Quilty and Kafer collectively teach the disputed claim
limitations. See Ans. 2—5. For example, the Examiner finds “[a]s
shown by these portions [of Quilty,] the devices [ajffected by the
reallocation automatically change their own parameters (i.e. the
claimed ‘self-optimization’) based on thresholds, rules and time
averages (i.e. . . . “attributes of self-optimization”).” Ans. 2—3. The
Examiner finds the cited prior art portions teach the claimed
“optimization detection granularity is used to indicate a detection cycle
of a performance measurement indicator” because, among other things,
Quilty describes the use of a “time average”; in
order to obtain an average at or over a specific time the
system must collect/detect the data over a specific time
(i.e. a measurement cycle) in order to obtain an average.
Additionally, Quilty teaches a cycle of monitoring and
determining whether to before the reallocation (i.e. self-
optimization) (see column 3 lines 33-42). In this section
there is a cycle of monitoring of the sources (i.e.
measuring of performance indicators) and a decision is
made whether to end the cycle or continue.
Kafer teaches self-optimization system (see paragraph
[0041]) that receives rules from a managing device (see
paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Ans. 3^4.
Appellants fail to persuasively respond to such findings, and fail to
critique many of the prior art portions cited by the Examiner. Therefore,
4
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
Appellants fail to show error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Further, many of Appellants’ assertions are attorney arguments that
are unsubstantiated by evidence, or are not commensurate with the scope of
the claim. See App. Br. 6—7.
II
Appellants contend Quilty and Kafer do not collectively teach
“the optimization confirmation is used to set whether the self-
optimization is required to be confirmed manually.” See App. Br. 8—
10. In particular, Appellants argue “the communication performance
information of Quilty has no relationship to the attributes including the
measurement cycle and the optimization confirmation.” App. Br. 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provides further findings
showing Quilty and Kafer collectively teach the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 6. For example, the Examiner finds “the claims
. . . merely requires[] the attributes include an ‘optimization
confirmation [that] is used to set whether the self-optimization is
required to be confirmed manually’. Quilty teaches the use of a flag
that is set to indicate whether reallocation requires user confirmation or
can be performed automatically . . . .” Ans. 6. Appellants fail to
persuasively respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show error
5
Appeal 2017-006855
Application 13/971,345
in the Examiner’s findings. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at
391.
Further, Appellants’ assertion about “the benefit of a specific master-
slave relationship” is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See
App. Br. 9. And Appellants’ unsupported assertion that “Kafer is silent on
the managed unit executed the self-optimization based on received attributes
with content sent from the managing unit as claimed” (App. Br. 9) lacks
adequate analysis and is unpersuasive of error.
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
independent claims 12, 22, and 26 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding
dependent claims 31—38, as Appellants do not advance separate
substantive arguments about those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 12, 22,
26, and 31—38.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6