Ex Parte MA et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2018

14546732 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2018)

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.
14/546,732 11/18/2014 Jianglei MA 30134/16308
(P16340USC1)
2520
114746 7590 02/28/2018
Ar>r>le Tno — FKM
EXAMINER
150 Broadway
Suite 702
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
New York, NY 10038 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2018 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):
mmarcin @ fkmiplaw .com
cchen@fkmiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANGLEI MA, PEIYING ZHU, WEN TONG,
HANG ZHANG, and MO-HAN FONG
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,7321
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 21-25 and 27^10. Claims 1-20 and 26 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,732
BACKGROUND
The Invention
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “various types of
handoffs and techniques for selecting an appropriate handoff in a wireless
access network.” Spec. ^ 2. Different types of handoffs may include soft
handoffs and fast base station switching (FBSS). See Abstract; Spec. ^ 7.
Exemplary independent claim 21 is reproduced below with the
disputed limitation emphasized.
21. A method for facilitating a handoff for a mobile terminal
in a wireless access network capable of supporting a plurality of
different handoff types, the method comprising, at a base
station:
determining context information associated with
supporting wireless communications between the wireless
access network and the mobile terminal, wherein the context
information is associated with a plurality of levels; and
selecting a handoff type from the plurality of handoff
types based on the context information used by the base stations
involved in a handoff and wherein selecting a handoff type is
further based on a level associated with the context information
used by the base stations involved in the handoff wherein the
selecting of a handoff type is performed by at least one of a
group comprising one of the base stations involved in the
handoff, or the wireless access network.
References and Rejections
1. Claims 21-25 and 27^40 stand rejected on the grounds of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
8,909,226. Final Act. 2-5.
2. Claims 21-25, 28-36, 39, and 40 stand rejected under
2
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,732
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Prehofer (US 2006/0099952 Al,
May 11, 2006), Wang (H. Wang & A. R. Prasad, Security Context Transfer
in Vertical Handover, 14th IEEE International Symposium on
Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communication Proceedings,
2775-79 (2003) (“Wang”)), and Agre (US 5,978,679, Nov. 2, 1999). Final
Act. 6-15.
3. Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Prehofer, Wang, Agre, Suda (US 2005/0163077 Al, July
28, 2005), and Kakishima (US 2004/0219918 Al, Nov. 4, 2004). Final Act.
15-17.
4. Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Prehofer, Wang, Agre, and Chheda (US 7,602,722 B2,
Oct. 13,2009). Final Act. 17-19.
5. Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Prehofer, Wang, Agre, and Pecen (US 2005/0227691 Al,
Oct. 13,2005). Final Act. 19-21
DISCUSSION
Double Patenting Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 21-25 and 27 40 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.
8,909,226. Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 2-3. Appellants do not present any
arguments addressing this rejection. See Reply Br. 2.2 Accordingly, we
summarily sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection.
2 Appellants appear to believe the claims are “provisionally rejected” on
ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Reply Br. 2. However, we note
the rejection is over an issued patent and the Examiner has not indicated that
3
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,732
Obviousness Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Claim 21 recites, in pertinent part, “wherein the context information is
associated with a plurality of levels . . . wherein selecting a handoff type is
further based on a level associated with the context information used by the
base stations involved in the handoff.” The Examiner finds this disputed
limitation is taught by a combination of Prehofer, Wang, and Agre. See
Final Act. 10 (citing Prehofer 85-86, 128-139, 144, Figs. 2, 10, 11; Wang
§ IV; Agre, Abstract, col. 2,11. 20^41, cols. 3-10).
Appellants present arguments with respect to each of the three relied
upon references. Regarding Prehofer, Appellants argue “Prehofer does not
disclose selecting one handoff type of a plurality of handoff types based on a
level of context information. Instead, Prehofer discloses determining a next
best access point for a mobile device based on context information and
performing a handoff if a handoff type is possible.” App. Br. 5.
Turning to Wang, Appellants argue “Wang fails to disclose or
suggest, in its entirety, associating context information with a plurality of
levels nor does Wang disclose that the handover type is based on the level of
context information.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5 (“Wang fails to
disclose or suggest using a level of context information as the basis for
selecting a type of handoff.”).
Finally, with respect to Agre, Appellants argue “Agre teaches
performing a handover based on a pilot strength signal measurement report
and Agre makes no mention of selecting whether to perform one of multiple
the rejection is provisional. Thus, we treat the double patenting rejection as
non-provisional.
4
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,732
types of handoffs based on a pilot strength signal measurement report.”
App. Br. 9.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
presented in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner’s Answer. We note the Examiner appears to explicitly address the
“context information is associated with a plurality of levels” aspect of the
disputed limitation only once in the Final Action (see Final Act. 10) and
does not appear to address it at all in the Answer. In the Final Action the
Examiner cites to a various sections of all three references but does not
sufficiently identify, with specificity, where in these sections the references
teach a plurality of levels of context information and that a handoff type is
selected based on a level associated with the context information. Nor does
the Examiner sufficiently explain how the three references would be
combined to teach or suggest the plurality of levels, if indeed, the Examiner
is relying on all three references to teach or suggest this aspect of the claim.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 21 and of independent claims 35
and 39 which were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 6-12. For the
same reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending
dependent claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25 and 27 40 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-25 and 27^10 is reversed.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection for each claim, the
Examiner’s rejection of the claims is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2017-009322
Application 14/546,732
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
6