Ex Parte Nishida et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

12663736 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/663,736 04/08/2010
22511 7590 06/15/2016
OSHA LIANG LLP,
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Katsutoshi Nishida
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.
174011239001 6617
EXAMINER
WEIDNER, TIMOTHY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KA TSUTOSHI NISHIDA and AKIMICHI TANABE
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., HUNG H. BUI, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2-10 as pending in this appeal. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is NTT DOCOMO,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed December 23, 2013
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed May 14, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed March 14, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed July
22, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 9, 2009
("Spec.").
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention relates to a method and apparatus for switching
(handover) between different access networks when a mobile station (MS)
moves from one access network to another access network in a mobile
communication system. Spec. 2: 19-21; Abstract. According to Appellants,
as the mobile station (MS) moves from one coverage area of a first access
network managed by a first access apparatus to another coverage area of a
second access network managed by a second access apparatus, the mobile
station (MS) begins communicating to a mobility anchor apparatus through
the second access apparatus, and then sends a path switching signal to the
mobility anchor apparatus so that the mobility anchor apparatus switches the
particular bearer for the mobile station from the first access network to the
second access network. Id., 13:21-14:4.
Claims 2; 7; and 9 are independent. Claim 2 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention, as reproduced below:
2. An access network switching method in a mobile
communication system including a mobile station, a first access
apparatus for performing connection control between the
mobile station and a first access network, a second access
apparatus for performing connection control between the
mobile station and a second access network, and an access
network switching apparatus for switching access networks to
communicate with the mobile station, comprising the steps of:
establishing, by the mobile station, a connection to
communicate with the access network switching apparatus via
the second access apparatus before transmitting a path
switching signal, when the mobile station enters a coverage area
of the second access network while communicating over the
first access network;
2
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
transmitting, by the mobile station, the path switching
signal for switching to a particular bearer to the access network
switching apparatus, when there are plural bearers in the second
access network for communicating with the access network
switching apparatus; and
switching, by the access network switching apparatus,
from the first access network to the second access network to
allow the mobile station to use the particular bearer, when the
access network switching apparatus receives the path switching
signal from the mobile station.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x.) (disputed limitations in italics).
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 2-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Taniuchi et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0207206 Al; issued
Aug. 28, 2008) ("Taniuchi") and Willars (U.S. Patent 6,507,567 Bl; issued
Jan. 14, 2003). Final Act. 3-14.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Taniuchi and Willars teaches or suggest
"establishing, by the mobile station, a connection to communicate with the
access network switching apparatus via the second access apparatus before
transmitting a path switching signal, when the mobile station enters a
coverage area of the second access network while communicating over the
first access network" as recited in Appellants' independent claim 2, and
similarly recited in independent claims 7 and 9. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br.
5-7.
3
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claim 2 and
similarly, claims 7 and 9, the Examiner finds Taniuchi disclose an access
network switching method in a mobile communication system for switching
(handoft) between different networks when a mobile station (MS) moves
from a coverage area of a first access network to a coverage area of a second
access network, as shown in Figure 1, including the disputed limitation:
"establishing, by the mobile station, a connection to
communicate with the access network switching apparatus via
the second access apparatus before transmitting a path switching
signal, when the mobile station enters a coverage area of the
second access network."
Final Act. 3-5 (citing Taniuchi i-fi-f 106-107, 180-181); Ans. 14--16
(Taniuchi i-fi-f 106-107, 142, 149, 116-117, 180-181; Figs. 1, 8, 14).
The Examiner relies on Willars for expressly teaching what was
implied by Taniuchi that such a connection is established "when the mobile
station enters a coverage area of the second access network while
communicating over the first access network" as recited in Appellants'
claims 2, 7, and 9 in order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at
5---6 (citing Willars 6:20-30, 7:22--42, 9:15-20, 11:38--40, 12:59-13:14; Fig.
2) (emphasis added).
Appellants present several arguments against the Examiner's
combination of Taniuchi and Willars. In particular, Appellants argue: (1)
"it can be clearly seen in the figures of Taniuchi that the mobile station
continues to communicate over the previous proxy mobile agent, i.e., the
first access apparatus" (App. Br. 10); (2) "[n]one of the cited figures from
4
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
Taniuchi show a mobile terminal communicating to the access network
apparatus over the second access apparatus before handoff' (Reply Br. 5-
6); rather (3) "the only figure of Taniuchi, i.e. Figure 7, showing
communication with network apparatus over the second access apparatus is
after handoff has already occurred" (Reply Br. 7).
Appellants also argue because Taniuchi's mobile station
communicates over the previous proxy mobile agent, i.e., the first access
apparatus, (1) Taniuchi teaches away from Appellants' claimed invention
which requires the mobile station to communicate over the second access
apparatus; and (2) there is no rational basis to combine the cited references.
App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 7.
Lastly, Appellants argue because Taniuchi's mobile station
communicates over the previous proxy mobile agent, i.e., the first access
apparatus, there is no rational basis to combine the cited references. App.
Br. 11-13.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 14--19. As such, we adopt
the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For
additional emphasis, Taniuchi's Figure 1 is reproduced below with
additional markings, inserted in red, for illustration.
5
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
,-,;::~!<: /" CN
\
'-"-.
fr -__ --.. Df>JATR!\FF!C
! _ -.J PM!P TUNNEL
Taniuchi's Figure 1 shows a mobile device (MN) switching (handoft)
between different networks.
As shown in Taniuchi' s Figure 1, pPMA represents a first proxy agent
located in a first access router (AR) which corresponds to Appellants'
claimed "first access apparatus." Similarly, nPMA represents a second
proxy agent located in a second access router (AR) which corresponds to
Appellants' claimed "second access apparatus." As recognized by the
Examiner, both the pPMA (first proxy agent) and the nPMA (second proxy
agent) are located under the same LMA (localized mobility anchor) which is
HA (home agent) and support switching (fast-handoft) of a mobile station
(MN) between the pPMA of the first access router (AR) (Appellants'
claimed "first access apparatus") and the nPMA of the second access router
6
' ' ' ': : : . -., ~ ',
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
(AR) (Appellants' claimed "second access apparatus"). Ans. 14 (citing
Taniuchi i-fi-f 106-107); also see Taniuchi i-fi-160-61.
When Taniuchi's mobile station (MS) moves from a current point of
attachment (pPoA) (Appellants' claimed "coverage area of a first access
network") to another point of attachment (nPoA) (Appellants' claimed
"coverage area of a second access network"), a tunnel is created between
pPMA of the first access router (AR) (Appellants' claimed "first access
apparatus") and nPMA of the second access router (AR) (Appellants'
claimed "second access apparatus), i.e., a connection is established for
Taniuchi's mobile station (MS) to communicate over the nPMA of the
second access router (AR) (Appellants' claimed "second access apparatus")
"before transmitting a path switching signal." Id. at 14--16 (citing Taniuchi
i-fi-f 106-107, 108-181; Fig. 14); also see Taniuchi i-fi-f 111-130.
Taniuchi further describes:
"FIG. 6 sho\'l/S this procedure. Ho\'l1ever \'l1hile this tunnel is
being created, the data still flows through PPMA. Thus data loss
is avoided during this tunnel creation. However, after the tunnel
is created the new data gets forwarded to pPoA via two tunnels
that were created between HA and nPMA and nPMA and
PPMA."
Taniuchi i-f 130.
In other words, Taniuchi teaches what Appellants characterize as the
disputed limitation: "establishing, by the mobile station, a connection to
communicate with the access network switching apparatus via the second
access apparatus before transmitting a path switching signal, when the
mobile station enters a coverage area of the second access network while
7
Appeal2014-006664
Application 12/663,736
communicating over the first access network" as recited in Appellants'
claims 2, 7, and 9.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Willars is relied upon to expressly
teach what is already implied by Taniuchi, that is, connection is established
over the second access network while communication is still maintained
over the first access network. Ans. 17-19; see also Willars 7:22-23; Fig. 2.
For the reasons set forth above, there is no basis to support
Appellants' arguments regarding Taniuchi's teaching away and no reason
for combining Taniuchi and Willars. Appellants have not demonstrated the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 2, 7, and 9 and their respective dependent claims 3---6, 8,
and 10, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 8.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 2-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8