Ex Parte Moisio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 2, 2013

10171380 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2013)

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.
10/171,380 06/14/2002 Martti Moisio 800.0421.U1(US) 7219
10948 7590 01/02/2013
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
PEREZ, ANGELICA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTTI MOISIO
____________

Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, BARBARA A. BENOIT,
and DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-17, 19-36, 38
1
, 39, and 40. See Br. 2.
2
Claims 18 and 37
3
are

1
Although the Final Rejection, at 1, indicates that claim 38 is not rejected, it
later indicates, at 11-13, that claim 38 is rejected. See also Ans. 11-13, 16-
17. Therefore, we treat claim 38 as rejected.
2
Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection mailed November
25, 2008, the Appeal Brief filed November 6, 2009, and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 17, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

2
objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim. See id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to allocating channels to mobile stations
(such as cellular telephones) in cellular radio networks. See Spec. ¶¶ 0002,
0009. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for carrying out dynamic channel
allocation in a cellular radio network, comprising:
grouping terminals communicating over a radio
connection with a base station of the cellular radio
network into two or more terminal groups on the basis of
the location of the terminals, wherein the terminals that
are located substantially within the same area and close
to one another are placed into one group;
forming a priority list for each terminal group of
the radio channels in the cellular radio network from the
highest quality channels as regards the terminal group,
and
allocating one or more radio channels from the
channels on the priority list to the terminal if need be.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Nakajima EP 0 430 173 A2 June 5, 1991
Eriksson US 5,448,750 Sept. 5, 1994
Ishikawa EP 0 666 699 A1 Aug. 9, 1995

3
Although the Answer, at 3, states that claim 38 is objected to as dependent
upon a rejected base claim, as explained above, the Answer, at 11-13, also
treats claim 38 as rejected. Therefore, we treat claim 38 as rejected.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

3
Ayerst US 5,799,012 Aug. 25, 1998
Grubeck US 6,449,484 B1 Sept. 10, 2002
(filed Jan. 14, 1998)
Claims 1-3, 20-22, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishikawa and Grubeck. See Ans. 4-6.
Claims 4-9, 23-28, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishikawa, Grubeck, and Nakajima. See Ans. 6-11.
Claims 10-14, 16, 19, 29-33, 35, and 38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ishikawa, Grubeck,
Nakajima, and Eriksson. See Ans. 11-13.
Claims 15, 17, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ishikawa, Grubeck, Nakajima, Eriksson, and
Ayerst. See Ans. 13-14.

ISSUE
Appellant directs the arguments to claims 1, 20, and 39. See Br. 6-11.
Appellant only nominally argues claims 2-17, 19, 21-36, 38, and 40
separately. See Br. 12-13.
The Examiner finds that Ishikawa teaches each limitation of claims 1,
20, and 39 except for the limitation “wherein the terminals that are located
substantially within the same area and close to one another are placed into
one group,” recited in each of these claims. See Ans. 4-5. The Examiner
finds that this limitation is “implied” in Ishikawa, but not explicitly taught.
Ans. 5. However, the Examiner finds that Grubeck explicitly teaches this
limitation, and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
Ishikawa’s channel allocation technique with Grubeck’s channel assignment
technique “in order to optimize channel allocation by minimizing the total
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

4
energy utilized within a coverage area.” Id. The issue is whether Ishikawa
and Grubeck teach or suggest “wherein the terminals that are located
substantially within the same area and close to one another are placed into
one group.” See Br. 8-11.

ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 20-22, AND 39 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Grubeck explicitly teaches “wherein the
terminals that are located substantially within the same area and close to one
another are placed into one group.” See Ans. 5. Grubeck teaches a
technique of grouping mobile stations according to their angular location, or
“directional bearing,” with respect to a base station. See Ans. 5 (citing
Grubeck, col. 7, l. 48–col. 8, l. 8; col. 8, ll. 50-54; col. 9, ll. 9-13). This is
shown in Grubeck’s Figure 3:

Figure 3 illustrates a base station BS with an antenna 310, assigning to
channel CH1 mobile stations MS1 and MS2, which are shown in angular
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

5
“sector” a1 relative to the base station BS, and assigning to channel CH2
mobile stations MS3 and MS4, which are shown in sector a2 relative to the
base station BS. See also Grubeck, col. 9, ll. 9-13 (“[T]he first and the
second mobile stations MS1 and MS2 should preferably be assigned to the
first channel CH1 and the third and fourth mobile stations MS3 and MS4
assigned to the second channel CH2, or vice versa. FIG. 3 illustrates this
assignment of the mobile stations MSI-MS4.”). Mobile stations MS2 and
MS4 are depicted as farther away from the base station than mobile stations
MS1 and MS3, although Grubeck does not quantify the differences. See
Grubeck, Fig. 3.
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding as to independent claims 1,
20, and 39. Appellant argues that Grubeck’s “sector-based grouping . . .
fails to teach or suggest that mobiles close to one another are grouped into
the same group.” Br. 9-10. Appellant then illustrates an example of
Grubeck’s technique with a drawing (not from Grubeck’s figures) where a
mobile station MS6, although closer to mobile stations MS8 and MS9, is
nevertheless grouped with mobile stations MS4 and MS5, because they
reside in the same sector a2 as mobile station MS6, while mobile stations
MS8 and MS9 reside in sector a3. See Br. 10-11. According to Appellant, if
Grubeck were using the invention of claims 1, 20, and 39, MS6 would be
grouped with MS8 and MS9 instead of MS4 and MS5. See Br. 10-11.
Appellant further argues that under the Examiner’s interpretation, “per
Grubeck, mobiles at distances of 100 meters and 15 kilometers will be
grouped into the same group if they lie within the same sector.” Br. 10.
Appellant does not cite the basis for these numerical assertions. See id.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

6
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate
in scope with the claims. Appellant does not cite any basis for construing
“close to one another” or “same area” so narrowly as to exclude Grubeck’s
groupings, even if Appellant is correct that those groupings could result in a
mobile stations 15 kilometers apart being grouped together. See Br. 6-11.
We agree with the Examiner that “the specification does not provide a clear
definition of what near means; e.g., within meters, tens of meters, hundreds
of meters, etc.” Ans. 15.
Instead, as the Examiner recognizes, Appellant’s Specification
describes “wherein the terminals that are located substantially within the
same area and close to one another are placed into one group” very broadly.
See Ans. 14 (citing Spec. ¶ 0013
4
); see also Final Rej. 2 (quoting Spec. ¶
0013).
5
Specifically, the Paragraph 13 of the Specification explains:
Grouping can be carried out more specifically in accordance
with the location information, in which case the terminals

4
We note that Appellant also cites Specification ¶ 0013 as providing a
description of this limitation. See Br. 3 (citing, inter alia, Spec. p. 5, ll. 1-6).
5
Appellant argues that the Examiner “cites excerpts of Appellant’s own
disclosure” and that “[i]t is unclear as to what the Examiner’s contentions
are as the Examiner has provided no reasoning as to how the asserted
references disclose the claimed features in light of Appellant’s disclosure.”
Br. 11. Appellant then concludes that “the Examiner has provided no
rationale to support the conclusion that Ishikawa and Grubeck may be
combined to disclose the claimed features in light of Appellant’s disclosure.”
Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. As we explain, the Examiner
cites Appellant’s disclosure to illustrate the breadth of the claim language in
dispute, which supports the Examiner’s finding that Grubeck discloses
“wherein the terminals that are located substantially within the same area
and close to one another are placed into one group.” In any case, Appellant
does not meaningfully challenge the Examiner’s conclusion as to the
rationale for combining Ishikawa and Grubeck. See Br. 11.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

7
located in the same range are preferably grouped into the same
group. The grouping is based on the fact that the interference
encountered by the terminals located close to one another on
different radio channels are near one another. The terminal
groups may vary in size, and the smallest groups comprise only
one terminal and the largest groups comprise all the terminals
in a particular coverage area.
Spec. ¶ 0013 (emphasis added). Specification page 10, lines 8-13, also cited
by Appellant as describing this limitation (see Br. 3), describes forming a
“terminal group of the terminals within the same area,” but does not provide
any limitation (either qualitative or quantitative) on the scope of the term
“same area.” Thus, consistent with the Specification, a reasonable, albeit
broad, interpretation of a “group” of terminals “located substantially within
the same area and close to one another” is a group that encompasses all the
terminals in a coverage area. See Spec. ¶ 0013.
Under this interpretation, Grubeck’s groups, which are confined to
mobile stations residing in angular “sectors,” rather than in the entirety of
the coverage area, are groups of mobile stations “located substantially within
the same area and close to one another.” As the Examiner finds, “Grubeck’s
invention teaches . . . MS[’s] being grouped by considering proximity to
each other when they fall within the boundaries of respective directional
antennas and where the groups are further limited by the radio of the
coverage area in relation to the BS.” Ans. 15 (citing Grubeck, Fig. 3).
Appellant has not provided convincing reasons why, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, the Examiner has erred in this finding.
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2, 3, 21, and 22. See
Br. 12.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

8
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1) claims 1, 20,
and 39; (2) claims 2 and 3, which depend on claim 1; and (3) claims 21 and
22, which depend on claim 20.
Because we find that Grubeck teaches “wherein the terminals that are
located substantially within the same area and close to one another are
placed into one group,” we do not reach Appellant’s challenge (see Br. 8-9)
to the Examiner’s finding that Ishikawa “implied[ly]” teaches this limitation
(Ans. 5).

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4-9, 23-28, AND 40 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 4-9, 23-28, and 40 are
substantially the same as those presented for claims 1, 20, and 39. See Br.
12. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-9, 23-28,
and 40 for the same reasons as given for claims 1, 20, and 39, above.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 10-14, 16, 19, 29-33, 35,
AND 38 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 10-14, 16, 19, 29-33, 35, and
38 are substantially the same as those presented for claims 1, 20, and 39.
See Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-
14, 16, 19, 29-33, 35, and 38 for the same reasons as given for claims 1, 20,
and 39, above.

REJECTION OF CLAIMS 15, 17, 34, AND 36 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 15, 17, 34, and 36 are
substantially the same as those presented for claims 1, 20, and 39. See Br.
Appeal 2010-007981
Application 10/171,380

9
12-13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 17,
34, and 36 for the same reasons as given for claims 1, 20, and 39, above.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-17, 19-36, and 38-40
is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc