Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14243598 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/243,598 04/02/2014
142839 7590 07/02/2019
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP /Huawei
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
Bo Lin
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.
210167.0606.9 (P534) 4610
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
uspatent@huawei.com
FIP _Group@bstz.com
KGSPatents@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO LIN and LI CHAI
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JASON J. CHUNG, 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 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HU A WEI
TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "relates to a radio
communications system, and in particular, to a cell discovery method,
device, and system." Spec. ,r 2.
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed invention and read as
follows:
1. A cell discovery method, comprising:
receiving, by a first base station, first radio frequency information of a
handover area;
receiving, by the first base station, second radio frequency information
that is reported by a user equipment served by a cell of the first base station;
detecting whether the second radio frequency information reported by
the user equipment matches the first radio frequency information of the
handover area; and
when the second radio frequency information reported by the user
equipment matches the first radio frequency information of the handover area,
sending a measurement instruction message to the user equipment that reports
the second radio frequency information for instructing the user equipment to
measure signal strength and/ or signal quality of a cell at a frequency of a cell
of a second base station or only of the cell of the second base station.
11. A first base station, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor in communication with the memory, the processor
configured to:
receive first radio frequency information of a handover area;
receive second radio frequency information that is reported by a user
equipment served by a cell of the first base station;
detect whether the second radio frequency information reported by the
user equipment matches the first radio frequency information of the handover
area; and
send, when the processor detects that the second radio frequency
information reported by the user equipment matches the first radio frequency
information of the handover area, a measurement instruction message to the
user equipment that reports the second radio frequency information for
instructing the user equipment to measure signal strength and/ or signal quality
2
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
of a cell at a frequency of a cell of a second base station or only of the cell of
the second base station.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Moe (US 2008/0207207 Al; Aug. 28, 2008),
Matsuo (8,577,373 B2; Nov. 5, 2013), and Siomina (US 2013/0182583 Al;
July 18, 2013). Final Act. 6-8.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moe, Matsuo, Siomina, and Choi (US 2008/0032696 Al;
Feb. 7, 2008). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Moe, Matsuo, Siomina, and Kang (US 2005/0197124
Al; Sept. 8, 2005). Final Act. 10-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 7-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Choi, and Aoyama (US 2009/0247163 Al; Oct. 1,
2009). Final Act. 11-14.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Choi, Aoyama, and Kim (US 2006/0003767 Al; Jan. 5,
2006). Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Moe, Matsuo, Siomina, Tao (CN 102143501 A; Aug. 3,
2011) and Charbit 2012/0302254 Al; Nov. 29, 2012). Final Act. 15-16.
3
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
ANALYSIS
THE§ 103 REJECTION BASED ON MOE, MATSUO, AND SIOMINA
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4, but we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11, 12, and 14.
Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to support sufficiently the
combination of Moe, Matsuo, and Siomina to teach or suggest the sending
the measurement instruction message limitation. App. Br. 25-26.
Appellants, in particular, assert "there is no relevant reason to modify Moe's
system to include such a message." App. Br. 25. According to Appellants,
"Moe's system requires ongoing and frequent quality reports" that are done
prior to sending the instruction to determine the unique cell ID. App. Br.
20-21. Appellants further note that including an additional measurement
instruction message to Moe would increase signaling load. App. Br. 26.
We agree that the Examiner has not supported sufficiently the
proposed combination. Namely, the Examiner reasons that it would have
been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Moe to "incorporate the ability to
send a specific measurement instruction of Matsuo since it enables reducing
signaling load caused by unnecessary measurements. (Matsuo Page
3[0040])." Final Act. 7. This reasoning, though, fails to consider the
teachings of Moe. For example, Moe describes that "[t]he base station
frequently receives, in step 202, reports from the terminal on measures made
on other cells, not only the second cell." Moe ,r 29. Further, while Moe
teaches sending an instruction message to identify a neighboring cell's
non-unique identity, this instruction is sent after determining that the cell's
4
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
quality measure exceeds a threshold value. Moe ,r 31. As such, the
Examiner fails to support sufficiently why a skilled artisan would have been
motivated to modify Moe to send an additional measurement instruction
message in view of Moe's already frequent measurement reports, which
Moe uses to determine whether to send the non-unique identify instruction
message. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 11 as obvious in view of Moe, Matsuo,
and Siomina.
However, as the Examiner points out, the sending a measurement
instruction message in claim 1 is a contingent limitation. See Ans. 4.
Namely, claim 1 recites "sending a measurement instruction message"
"when the second radio frequency information matches the first radio
frequency information." Claim App'x (emphasis added). In other words, if
the first and second radio frequency do not match, the method will not send
the measurement instruction message. Because Moe, Matsuo, and Siomina
teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 other than the disputed contingent
limitation, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
as obvious. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL
6277792 (PT AB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4,
but reverse the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 14.
THE§ 103 REJECTION BASED ON MOE, MATSUO, SIOMINA AND CHOI
Claims 3 and 13
Appellants do not argue the limitations of claims 3 and 13 separately.
See App. Br. 29. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Examiner's
5
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
rejection of claim 3, which depends from claim 1, but we reverse the
rejection of claim 13, which depends from claim 11.
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON MOE, MATSUO, SIOMINA AND KANG
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16
Appellants do not argue the limitations of claims 5, 6, 15, and 16
separately. See App. Br. 30. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 1, but we
reverse the rejection of claims 15 and 16, which depend from claim 11.
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON CHOI AND AOY AMA
Claims 7- 9 and 17-19
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 7-9 and 17-19 as unpatentable over Choi and
Aoyama.
Appellants argue that the cited combination of Choi and Aoyama fails
to teach or suggest "detecting, by the user equipment, whether the first radio
frequency information of the handover area matches second radio frequency
information acquired by the user equipment," as required by claim 7.
According to Appellants, "[e]ven a cursory review of [the cited paragraphs
of Choi] fails to show any disclosure or teaching regarding a frequency at
all, and certainly no teaching of [the disputed limitation]." App. Br. 32.
The Examiner, however, points out that Choi teaches "searching and
finding" the second base station. Final Act. 11-12. More specifically, Choi
teaches that user equipment receives handover information including
frequency information. See Ans. 9. The user equipment then uses this
6
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
frequency information to match a reference signal from the second base
station. Ans. 9 ( citing Choi ,r,r 68, 118-120); see also, e.g., Choi ,r 68 ("The
terminal may search for a reference signal that is transmitted from the at
least one second base station, using the spreading code information or the
frequency information about the at least one second base station."). As such,
we are not persuaded that Choi fails to teach or suggest the claimed
detecting limitation.
Next, Appellants contend that Choi fails to teach or suggest
"measuring, by the user equipment, signal strength and/or signal quality of a
cell at a frequency of a cell of a second base station or only of the cell of the
second base station." App. Br. 32-34. Specifically, Appellants allege "Choi
does not teach that any such measurement is performed when the first radio
frequency information of the handover area matches second radio frequency
information acquired by the user equipment." App. Br. 34.
We disagree. Choi teaches searching and detecting, i.e. matching a
first and second radio frequency information. Final Act. 11-12. Once the
second base station is found or matched, Choi "generates wireless channel
quality information among the first base station 720, the terminal 730, and
the second base station 740, using a reference signal that is received from
the second base station 740." Choi ,r 120; see also Choi Fig. 7 (S753 and
S754); Final Act. 12; Ans. 9. In particular, Choi "compares wireless channel
quality information between the first base station 720 and the terminal 730,
and another wireless channel quality information between the terminal 730
and the second base station 740." Choi ,r 121; see also Final Act. 12; Ans. 9.
Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive.
7
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
Appellants assert that Choi does not teach or suggest performing the
measurement in response to a measurement instruction message.
App. Br. 34. Additionally, Appellants contend that Aoyama's control
message is not the claimed instruction message because "it is not sent or
received when the processor detects that the first radio frequency
information of the handover area matches second radio frequency
information acquired by the user equipment." See App. Br. 35. These
arguments, however, fail to consider the combination of Choi' s detecting
and Aoyama's control message. See, e.g., Final Act. 12. "[O]ne cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references." See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to support
sufficiently the combination of Choi and Aoyama. App. Br. 36-37.
According to Appellants, "Choi does not need any measurement control
message as in Aoyama, since it already preforms any necessary
measurements under its own criteria." Id. The Examiner, however, points
out that the handover message of Choi is analogous to Aoyama's
measurement control message "since they both enable checking signal
quality of a specific neighboring base station in order to determine whether
it is a better serving choice." Ans. 11. In other words, a skilled artisan
would understand Choi' s handover information message, in view of
Aoyama's control message, at least suggests the claimed measurement
instruction message. Therefore, based on the record before us, we are not
8
Appeal 2018-008317
Application 14/243,598
persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining the claimed invention is
obvious in view of Choi and Aoyama.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-9 and
17-19 as unpatentable over Choi and Aoyama.
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON CHOI, AOY AMA, AND KIM
Claims 10 and 20
Appellants do not argue the limitations of claims 10 and 20 separately.
See App. Br. 38. Instead, Appellants rely on the arguments presented for
claim 7. For the reasons discussed above, we find these arguments
unpersuasive and affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 20.
THE § 103 REJECTION BASED ON MOE, MATSUO, SIOMINA, TAO,
ANDCHARBIT
Claim 21
Appellants do not argue the limitations of claim 21 separately. See
App. Br. 39. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the rejection of
claim 21, which depends from claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and
17-21, but we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9