Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201411371707 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PATRICK LI, VIC PAN, and DAVID A. ROSSETTI ____________________ Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBORAH KATZ, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20. Claims 2, 13, and 21 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 The real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent USA. The application has been assigned to Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1). 2 Our Decision refers to the original Specification filed Mar. 9, 2006 (“Spec.”); the Appeal Brief filed Sept. 8, 2011 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed Nov. 21, 2011 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Jan. 23, 2012 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 2 STATEMENT OF CASE In mobile telecommunications networks, it is necessary to switch base stations or sectors serving a communication with a mobile station as it moves from one cell coverage area to another (Spec. ¶ 4). This procedure is termed a ‘handoff’ or ‘handover’ (id.). For various reasons, it may be desirable to provide a cell with additional coverage using a “microcell” (Spec. ¶ 3). For example, a microcell may serve a particular building within the cell coverage area to provide wireless coverage within the building (id.). The larger cell containing the microcell may be referred to as a “macrocell” (id.). Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for performing handoffs between macrocells and microcells in which a common cell definition code is assigned to multiple microcells within the microcell coverage area (Spec. ¶ 27). After detection of the common cell definition code, the mobile station is handed off to one of a plurality of microcells based on either locating a reverse pilot signal from the mobile station (claim 1) or taking power measurements for each of a plurality of microcells (claim 7). Claims 1 and 7, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. A method of communicating, comprising: using a common cell definition code for a plurality of microcells within a single macrocell to facilitate a handoff from the macrocell to at least one of the microcells; determining if a mobile station currently communicating with a base station serving the macrocell detects the common cell definition code; locating a reverse pilot signal from the mobile station on a frequency used by the macrocell and the mobile station after the mobile station has detected the common cell definition code; and Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 3 identifying one of the microcells to which the mobile station should be handed off based upon the located reverse pilot signal. 7. The method of communicating, comprising: using a common cell definition code for a plurality of microcells within a single macrocell to facilitate a handoff from the macrocell to at least one of the microcells; determining if a mobile station currently communicating with a base station serving the macrocell detects the common cell definition code; taking a power measurement from the mobile station at each of the plurality of microcells after the mobile station has detected the common cell definition code; and identifying one of the microcells to which the mobile station should be handed off based upon the taken power measurement. The limitations emphasized in claims 1 and 7 above are of particular importance to this appeal. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Kim US 2007/0064648 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Vikberg US 2007/0281696 A1 Dec. 6, 2007 (filed Feb. 6, 2004) Chia WO 92/02104 Feb. 6, 1992 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: A. Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Vikberg (Ans. 4–5, 11–12). B. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg and Kim (Ans. 5–9, 12–13). Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 4 C. Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg, Kim, and Chia (Ans. 9, 13–14). D. Claims 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg and Chia (Ans. 10, 14–15). ANALYSIS A. Rejection of Claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Vikberg. The Examiner relied upon Vikberg to disclose the step of claim 7 which recites “taking a power measurement from the mobile station at each of the plurality of microcells after the mobile station has detected the common cell definition code” (see Ans. 5; Vikberg ¶¶ 3, 8, 27, 33, 37, Figs. 2, 3 - events 5 and 6). In particular, the Examiner states that Vikberg discloses that the mobile station measures associated frequencies and reports back on the strongest frequencies along with the base station identity code (BSIC) and absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN) in the next measurement report sent to the base station subsystem at event 6 of Fig. 3 (Vikberg ¶ 33). The Examiner states that the mobile station detected the common cell definition code at event 5 of Figure 3 of Vikberg. Appellants argue that the Vikberg reference discloses no power measurement taken at a plurality of microcells. According to Appellants, Vikberg’s measurement report concerns a macrocell, not a plurality of microcells, and Vikberg’s measurement report concerns a single absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN) assigned to the unlicensed radio access network (Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 1–2). With reference to the flowchart of Figure 3, Vikberg states: At event 4 it is assumed that the mobile station has wandered into the coverage area or mini-cell of a home base station HBS Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 5 of an unlicensed radio access network. The mobile station sets up a radio link with the HBS via the unlicensed radio interface X. The mobile station MS is then able to receive system information from the home base station HBS including the base station identifier code BSIC and the absolute radio frequency channel number ARFCN at event 5. The BSIC and ARFCN values are then included in the next measurement report sent to the base station subsystem BSS at event 6. Vikberg ¶ 33; Fig. 3. For context, it is helpful to consider this disclosure in conjunction with other parts of Vikberg, such as that reproduced below: In addition to the cell identifier CGI, the unlicensed-radio access network has a single base station identifier BSIC and absolute radio frequency channel number ARFCN. The base station identifier BSIC and absolute radio frequency channel number ARFCN are communicated by each home base station HBS 301 in response to a measurement report request from the mobile station MS 1, and consequently an indication of these identifiers will be included in any measurement report sent by a mobile station 1 to its connected base station controller 103 when it established a connection with a home base station HBS 301 of an unlicensed-radio access network 30. Vikberg ¶ 30 with reference to Fig. 2 (emphasis added.) Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 6 Figure 2 of Vikberg shows a plurality of minicells served by respective home base stations of an unlicensed radio network that are capable of performing a handover procedure with a mobile station (MT). The home base stations of the unlicensed network are identified on the cellular network via a common cell global identifier CGI-A. We find that the above excerpts from Vikberg make it clear that the home base stations serving the mini-cells take power measurements of the mobile station’s signal in response to a request from the mobile station.3 Therefore, we find that Vikberg discloses the power measurement step of claim 7 as recited. Appellants also argue that the Vikberg reference fails to disclose the last step of claim 7 which recites “identifying one of the microcells to which the mobile station should be handed off based upon the taken power measurement.” In particular, the Appellants state that “event 6” of Figure 3 3 Appellants do not argue any distinction between the “microcells” claimed and the “mini-cells” of Vikberg. Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 7 of the Vikberg reference does not constitute measurement of each of a plurality of microcells for identifying a microcell for handover of a mobile station based on a power measurement because the system does not know which home base station HBS the handover request concerns (Appeal Br. 6– 7). We note that there is nothing recited in claim 7 concerning what a system or any particular element of it “knows” about a handover request at any point in the handover procedure. To this extent, Appellants argue limitations not present in the claim. In addition, with reference to Figure 2, Vikberg states that each home base station responds to a measurement report request from the mobile station (Vikberg ¶ 30, 33; Fig. 2, 3 – events 5 and 6). The mobile station forwards this measurement list to the base station subsystem connected to the mobile station for use in the handover procedure (id.). That a handover reference may be required for the home base station controller to identify which home base station is connected to the mobile station does not change the fact that the measurement report is used at least in part to identify the home base station to which handover is to be made. Under the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation,4 we find that the Examiner reasonably found that Vikberg discloses this limitation. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Appellants argue claim 7 together with claim 9 so our findings with respect to claim 7 apply as well to claim 9.5 4 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); MPEP §2111. 5 See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 8 B. Rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg and Kim. Appellants argue that Vikberg does not disclose the steps of claim 1 reciting “locating a reverse pilot signal” and “identifying one of a plurality of microcells” (Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2). In particular, Appellants argue that the measurement report of Vikberg is a measurement of signal strength from a macrocell base station and a signal strength in a signal frequency from an unlicensed radio band, and that this is not the same thing as “locating a reverse signal.” As noted by the Examiner, Vikberg discloses measurement reports taken at each of a plurality of microcells (Ans. 12–13; Vikberg ¶ 30, 33; Fig. 2, 3 – events 5 and 6). In Vikberg the mobile station requests power measurements from each of the home base stations serving respective mini- cells of an unlicensed wireless network, and forwards those measurements to the base station subsystem (id.). The signal of the mobile station that the home base stations measure in this procedure thus has the characteristic of a reverse pilot signal. Nonetheless, the Examiner further cited Kim as explicit teaching for use of a pilot signal in the context of power measurement to demonstrate that use of pilot signals is well-known in the art (id.). Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument. Appellants further argue that in Vikberg there is no identification of a microcell to which handover should be performed on the basis of a measurement report, and therefore, the “identifying” step of claim 1 could not be disclosed in Vikberg (Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 2). We disagree with Appellants’ argument for similar reasons to those stated previously with respect to claim 7. In Vikberg the mobile station sends a measurement report for each of a plurality of microcells of an unlicensed wireless network Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 9 to the base station subsystem for use in the handover procedure (Vikberg ¶ 30, 33; Fig. 2, 3 – events 5 and 6). As previously noted, that certain elements such as the home base station controller are not informed of the identity of the home base station connected to the mobile station until a handover reference match has occurred does not mean that the “identifying” step of claim 1 is not fully taught by Vikberg and Kim. Specifically, Vikberg uses the power measurement report at least in part to determine the one home base station to which handover is to be made, and that is sufficient to meet the claim limitation. Therefore, we are not persuaded by this argument. Finally, with respect to claim 1, the Appellants argue that a disclosure showing a reverse signal is insufficient to meet the limitation, and that the disclosure must encompass locating a reverse pilot signal. The Examiner combined Kim with Vikberg for this very reason – to show that the use of pilot signals in the context of power measurement is well-known in the art (Ans. 12). In addition, Vikberg discloses that the mobile station requests home base stations serving respective mini-cells to respond with power measurements, and the mobile station signal measured thus has the properties of a reverse pilot signal (Vikberg ¶ 30, 33; Figs. 2 and 3 – events 5 and 6). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that this limitation is fully met in the combination of Vikberg and Kim. No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 4, 6, 8, and 14–20 and thus our findings with respect to claim 1 apply as well to these claims.6 6 Id. Appeal 2012-004897 Application 11/371,707 10 C. Rejection of Claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg, Kim, and Chia. No separate arguments for patentability are presented for dependent claims 3 and 5 (Appeal Br. 8), and thus our findings with respect to claim 1 apply as well to these claims.7 D. Rejection of Claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Vikberg and Chia. No separate arguments were presented for dependent claims 10–12 (Appeal Br. 8) and thus our findings with respect to claim 7 apply as well to these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, and 14–20 is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED cdc 7 Id. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation