Ex Parte Nádas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2014

12516237 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2014)

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.
12/516,237 05/26/2009 Szilveszter Nádas 4105-6498 / P22465-US1 6274
24112 7590 12/04/2014
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ADDY, ANTHONY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2014 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 SZILVESZTER NADAS, PETER LUNDH,
SANDOR RACZ, and ZOLTAN NAGY1
____________________

Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
29–31, 36, 38, 41–43, 48, and 50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to a method and system for congestion
avoidance in a cellular-telephony system. Spec. 1, ll. 56.

1According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
2
Claim 29, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
29. A method for controlling the flow of traffic in a
cellular telephony system including one or more cells, each cell
including at least one Radio Base Station (RBS) to control the
traffic to and from [U]ser [E]quipment (UE) in the cell, wherein
the traffic to each UE comprises at least one traffic flow, the
method comprising:

executing a control function for each controlled flow of traffic
to each UE, wherein the control function comprises a
congestion avoidance function operative to detect a presence or
an absence of congestion in a traffic flow to a UE;

non-linearly reduce a bit rate of the traffic to the congested UE
responsive to detecting either congestion or low utilization of
the cellular telephony system;

linearly increase the bit rate of the traffic to the previously
congested UE responsive to detecting the absence of
congestion; and

minimize a time between successive bit rate decreases using a
down prohibit function included in the congestion avoidance
control function.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 29 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Panico et al. (US 2010/0035619 A1, Feb. 11, 2010),
Battin et al. (US 5,649,299 A, July 15, 1997), and Dhamdhere (US
7,756,082 B1, July 13, 2010). Ans. 47.
Claims 30 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Panico, Battin, Dhamdhere, and Komandur et al. (US
2003/0092392 A1, May 15, 2003). Ans. 78.
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
3
Claims 31 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Panico, Battin, Dhamdhere, Komandur, and Amirijoo et
al. (US 6,728,217 B1, Apr. 27, 2004). Ans. 8.
Claims 36 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Panico, Battin, Dhamdhere, and Gruet et al. (US
2007/0082675 A1, Apr. 12, 2007). Ans. 9.
Claims 38 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Panico, Battin, Dhamdhere, Gruet, and Agin et al. (US
2009/0005053 A1, Jan. 1, 2009). Ans. 910.

ISSUES
1. Claims 29 and 41
Appellants argue on pages 6–13 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 29 and 41 as obvious in view of Panico, Battin,
Dhamdhere. Specifically, Appellants present the following issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that Panico’s disclosure of sending
a control function to every UE teaches or suggests executing a control
function for each controlled flow of traffic to each UE, wherein the
control function comprises a congestion avoidance function?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Dhamdhere’s disclosure of
minimizing the time between a first reduction to a medium bit rate and
a second reduction to a lower bit rate teaches or suggests minimizing
the time between successive bit-rate decreases using a down prohibit
function included in the congestion avoidance control function?

Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
4
2. Claims 30 and 42
Appellants argue on pages 13–15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner erred in finding claims 30 and 42 obvious in view of Panico,
Battin, Dhamdhere, and Komandur. Appellants’ arguments present us with
the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Komandur’s disclosure of
reducing a transmission window exponentially teaches or suggests
that a non-linear reduction of the bit rate is performed either
exponentially or as a step function?
3. Claims 31 and 43
Appellants argue on pages 15–17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner erred in finding claims 31 and 43 obvious in view of Panico,
Battin, Dhamdhere, Komandur, and Amirijoo. Appellants’ arguments
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Amirijoo’s disclosure of bit-rate
reductions triggered by a bit-error-rate threshold teach or suggest a
down prohibit function that includes a time period after each bit rate
decrease, during which time period new bit rate decreases are
disallowed?
4. Claims 36 and 48
Appellants argue on pages 17–18 that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 36 and 48 obvious in view of Panico, Battin, Dhamdhere, and Gruet.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Gruet’s disclosure of congestion
detection based on the capacity or lack of capacity in a Radio Network
Controller (“RNC”) buffer teaches or suggests detecting congestion if
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
5
the RNC does not receive a predetermined type of data frame from the
Radio Base Station (“RBS”) during a predetermined amount of time?

ANALYSIS
1. Claims 29 and 41
a) Appellants first argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29
because the cited prior art does not disclose the limitation “executing a
control function for each controlled flow of traffic to each UE, wherein the
control function comprises a congestion avoidance function.” Specifically,
Appellants argue that claim 29 is limited to a control function that “exists
individually for each controlled traffic flow to each UE.” App. Br. 9; see
also Reply 4 (arguing that claim 29 is limited to “one flow control function
per controlled flow to each individual UE”).
Panico discloses a system in which congestion-avoidance control
functions are applied to all UEs in a given region upon detection of
congestion. Panico ¶¶ 22, 98, 105, and 106. The Examiner finds that
Panico’s disclosure of a control function sent to every UE necessarily means
that a control function is sent to each UE, as required by claim 29, and we
agree. Appellants do not raise persuasive evidence or authority to support
the argument that claim 29 should be limited to instances in which a control
function is individually tailored for each individual UE. Further, Appellants
do not raise persuasive arguments or authority to rebut the Examiner’s
finding that sending a control function to every UE is also sending a control
function to each UE as required by claim 29.

b) Appellants next argue that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dhamdhere discloses “minimize a time between successive bit rate
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
6
decreases using a down prohibit function included in the congestion
avoidance control function,” as recited in claim 29. App. Br. 11–12.
Appellants argue that Dhamdhere teaches “the method minimizes the time
needed to achieve a particular data rate,” but not successive bit-rate
reductions. Id.
Dhamdhere discloses minimizing the time to reach a low data rate by
first reducing the rate to an intermediate rate and then reducing the rate again
to the desired rate. Dhamdhere, col. 15, ll. 35–41. The Examiner finds that
by teaching at least a first and second reduction of the bit rate, Dhamdhere
teaches successive bit rate decreases, as required by claim 29. Ans. 20–21
(citing Dhamdhere, col. 15, ll. 35–41).
We agree with the Examiner. Dhamdhere teaches minimizing the
time between a first bit-rate decrease and a second, successive bit-rate
decrease. Dhamdhere, col. 15, ll. 35–41. Appellants do not raise persuasive
evidence or authority to rebut the Examiner’s finding that this limitation in
claim 29 is taught by the first and second bit-rate decrease in Dhamdhere.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim
29. Appellants argue that claim 41 is an apparatus claim that corresponds to
claim 29, and that claim 41 is not obvious for the same reasons argued
regarding claim 29. App. Br. 12–13. Appellants do not advance persuasive
independent arguments or evidence relating to claim 41. See id.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 for the same
reasons discussed for claim 29.

2. Claims 30 and 42
Appellants argue that Komandur does not teach or suggest decreasing
a bit rate “exponentially, or in a step-wise manner,” as required by claims 30
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
7
and 42. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue that Komandur discloses decreasing
the size of the time window during which transmissions can occur, not
decreasing the bit rate itself. Id.
Komandur teaches that upon detection of congestion, “[t]he wireless
content switch 125 causes the content source to reduce the rate of
transmission of data packets.” Komandur ¶ 35; accord Komandur Fig. 2.
Citing that disclosure and Komandur’s related disclosure of reducing the
transmission-window size either linearly or exponentially, the Examiner
finds that Komandur teaches exponentially decreasing the bit rate as
required by claims 30 and 42. Ans. 7 (citing Komandur ¶ 35).
We agree with the Examiner. Komandur expressly teaches reducing
the bit rate as a response to high bit error rates. Komandur Fig. 2, ¶ 35.
While Komandur discloses reducing the window size as one method of
mitigating congestion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that Komandur’s disclosure of reducing transmission rates is not limited
only to reducing transmission windows. Indeed, Figure 2 of Komandur is a
flow diagram that recites “Reduce Transmission Rate,” without addressing
transmission windows, and we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize Komandur’s disclosure as a general reference to known
methods of reducing transmission rates. See also Komandur ¶ 26
(describing Fig. 2 and reduction of transmission rates without addressing
transmission window size). According, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 30 and 42.

3. Claims 31 and 43
Claims 31 and 43 recite a down-prohibit function that includes a time
period after each bit rate decrease during which new bit-rate decreases are
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
8
disallowed. The Examiner finds Amirijoo teaches this limitation in its
disclosure that, for so long as the bit error rate stays above a certain
threshold, the bit rate will not decrease. Ans. 26. Appellants argue that the
down-prohibit functions of claims 31 and 43 require measures that disallow
subsequent bit-rate decreases for a specified period of time after each bit-rate
decrease, and that Amirijoo does not teach prohibiting decreases for a
specified period of time. App. 1517.
We agree with Appellants. The cited disclosure of Amirijoo provides
that bit-rate decreases will occur in accordance with certain bit-error-rate
thresholds, without regard to the time of a previous bit-rate decrease.
Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection claims 31 and 43.

4. Claims 36, 38, 48, and 50
Claims 36 and 48 recite detection of congestion based on the failure of
a Radio Network Controller (“RNC”) to receive a predetermined type of
data frame from the Radio Base Station within a predetermined amount of
time. The Examiner finds that Gruet teaches detection of congestion based
on the failure of the RNC to receive data frames when a memory buffer is
full. Ans. 28. Appellants argue that Gruet only monitors the fill level of
buffers at the RNC, and that it does not monitor the type of data frame
received at the RNC in order to determine congestion. App. Br. 18.
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive and do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 36 and 48. Claims 38 and 50 depend from
claims 36 and 48, respectively, and we therefore do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 38 and 50 for the same reasons.
Appeal 2012-007783
Application 12/516,237
9

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29, 30, 41,
and 42 is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 36, 38, 43, 48,
and 50 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
llw