Ex Parte Ren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2014

11814980 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HONG REN, CARL CAO, and ALFRED SCHMIDT
____________________

Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: RICHARD E. SCHAFER, HUNG H. BUI, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1–3, 5, and 8–20. These claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Di Lalla (US 6,745,039 B1, issued June 1, 2004) in view of
Tiedemann (US 5,289,527, issued Feb. 22, 1994).2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to a method and system for determining a
paging zone in a wireless network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of establishing a paging zone for a terminal in
a wireless access network comprising:
a) including in the paging zone the sector which receives
the last location update from said terminal;
b) including in the paging zone sectors located within a
determined distance from said sector, the determined distance
being determined by a Route Update radius and a Route Update
radius offset; and
c) adjusting the sectors included in the paging zone based
on criteria stored for said sector.
ANALYSIS
The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the prior art applied by
the Examiner discloses the “sector” limitations of the claims at issue,
rendering the claims obvious.

1 The real party in interest is identified as Ericsson AB. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 4, 6, and 7 are canceled. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

3
As explained in the Specification, wireless networks typically
determine the location of a mobile telephone or terminal within the network
by “paging” the terminal. Spec. 1, 6. To page a terminal, a message is
transmitted that prompts the terminal to set up a channel and report its
current location to the network. Id. A page may be transmitted to the entire
network, but to conserve network resources the page is usually limited to a
smaller “paging zone.” Id. Various methods and criteria for establishing
paging zones have been used in order to balance the need to conserve
network resources with the need for selecting a zone where the terminal is
located so that it can be successfully paged, i.e., paging reliability. See id.
For example, “prior art methods have proposed to only page a terminal in
the sector from which it had last transmitted a message to the network, and
the surrounding sectors.” Id. at 1.
In one prior art method, a network is divided into non-overlapping
paging zones, and all locations within the zone share the same paging zone.
Spec. 6. Appellants’ Specification explains that this could result in low
paging reliability where, for example, a mobile terminal was last identified
at the paging zone boundary and has already moved to another paging zone
when the next page is sent out. See id. Appellants’ invention proposes to
solve this problem by defining a paging zone for each sector that includes all
sectors located within a certain radius of that sector. Id. at 7. Appellants’
Specification proposes that this radius could be the RouteUpdateRadius,
which is a defined parameter in certain network standards, and could also be
expanded by including a radius offset beyond the RouteUpdateRadius, id. at
9.
Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

4
In addition, a list of sectors can be added or subtracted from the
paging zone for various reasons. Spec. 9–11. For example, cells or sectors
may be added and/or subtracted to a paging zone in light of capacity
demands or to change its shape from circular to elongated. Id. at 11. An
elongated zone that more generally aligns with the direction of an interstate
highway can increase reliability without sacrificing resources because it is
likely that the terminal is travelling quickly in the direction of the highway
and the terminal may be unlikely to be located far from the highway in a
remote area. See id.
The method of Appellants’ claim 1 requires, among other steps,
“including in the paging zone sectors located within a determined distance
from” the sector that received the last location update from the terminal, and
“adjusting the sectors included in the paging zone based on criteria stored
for said sector.” App. Br. 14. The Examiner rejected claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Di Lalla and Tiedemann. Ans. 5–6. Appellants agree that
Di Lalla discloses including in a paging zone “cells located within a defined
distance of the most recent position of a mobile terminal,” and do not
dispute that Di Lalla also teaches adjusting cells included in a paging zone
based on criteria stored for a particular cell. App. Br. 9. Appellants argue,
however, that because the claim recites the term “sectors,” it requires
“determining and using a paging zone at a sector granularity,” and that Di
Lalla and Tiedemann fail to disclose establishing a paging zone using sector
granularity. Id. at 11. Appellants argue that Di Lalla and Tiedemann thus
disclose “methods or systems which are not as efficient as the claimed
methods because too many sectors of the included cells (each cell having a
App
App

plura
resou
not s
limit
broa
secto
Br. 1
base
cell i
eal 2012-0
lication 11
lity of sec
rces.” Ap
We do n
hown that
ations of c
dest reason
r “should
1. Appell
station tra
s subdivid
Figure 1
Figu
03578
/814,980
tors) are p
p. Br. 10.
ot find Ap
the Exam
laim 1 rec
able inter
be constru
ants’ Spec
nsceiver (
ed into 3 s
illustrates
re 1 depict
aged resul

pellants’ a
iner erred
iting “sect
pretation o
ed to mea
ification d
e.g., cell si
ectors by
this conce
s a paging
5
ting in the
rguments
in finding
ors.” App
f “sector”
n exactly a
escribes a
te) and de
using direc
pt and is r
zone with
wasting o
persuasive
that Di La
ellants arg
in light of
sector an
cell as an
scribes tha
tional ant
eproduced
in a cellul
f network
. Appella
lla disclos
ue that un
the Speci
d not a cel
area surro
t “[t]ypica
ennas.” S
below:
ar network
nts have
es the
der the
fication,
l.” App.
unding a
lly each
pec. 5–6.

.

Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

6
As shown in Figure 1, each hexagon represents a cell with a base
station antenna at the center and three sectors. Spec. 7.3 The Specification
describes that “all the sectors that are located within the circular area defined
by the RouteUpdateRadius of the sector 15 will be included in the paging
zone.” Id. at 8. “Hence, in figure 1, the paging zone includes the center cell
10 and all of the surrounding cells highlighted with the brick pattern 20, 30,
40, 50, 60, and 70.” Id. The description in the Specification sometimes
refers to sectors, sometimes to cells, once to “cells/sectors,” id. at 6, once to
“sectors/cells,” id. at 9, and frequently to “sectors (or cells),” see, e.g., id. at
11. The Specification notes that “the paging zone can be configured in
terms of individual sectors rather than cells.” Id. at 10.
We agree with the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification, the term “sector” includes a single
coverage area covered by an antenna. See Ans. 11. In the specific
embodiments described in Appellants’ Specification, an antenna providing a
single area of coverage is one out of three directional antennas on a base
station, creating three sectors in a cell. Spec. 5–7, Fig. 1. The Specification
describes that “[t]ypically each cell is subdivided into 3 sectors by using
directional antennas,” Spec. 5–6, but does not exclude a sector/cell created
by a single omni-directional antenna, for example.
As Appellants point out, Di Lalla does not use the term “sector.”
App. Br. 9. Figure 2 of Di Lalla is reproduced below:

3 The Specification does not state that a cell is the hexagon surrounded by
three base station antennas.
App
App

such
col.
effic
asso
emph
see,
inven
the l
to a m
that
Di L
App
singl
eal 2012-0
lication 11
Figure 2
as macroc
4, ll. 18–33
iency and
ciated with
asizes the
e.g., id. at
tion is to
east amoun
As the E
obile sta
identifies a
alla’s “cel
ellants’ Sp
e coverag
03578
/814,980
of Di Lall
ells A thro
. Di Lall
other crite
each cell
ability to
col. 3, ll. 2
find the m
t of netwo
xaminer p
tion regist
cell, e.g.,
ls” are sing
ecification
e areas gen
a shows a
ugh G an
a teaches a
ria for eac
according
“self-conf
7–28, and
aximum n
rk resourc
oints out a
ering in a c
col. 2, l. 3
le covera
. It is not
erated by
7
cellular ne
d microcel
nalyzing s
h cell and
ly. See id.
igure” pag
specifical
umber of [
es,” id. at
t page 11
ell, e.g., c
9. These
ge areas lik
critical wh
an omni-d
twork wit
ls 1 throug
tatistics on
adjusting t
at col. 3,
ing zones
ly states th
mobile sta
col. 3, ll.
of the Ans
ol. 3, l. 62
references
e the sect
ether Di L
irectional

h various
h 15. See
the pagin
he paging
ll. 25–52.
on a “per-
at “the ob
tions] wh
50–52.
wer, Di La
, and to a
indicate t
ors describ
alla’s “ce
antenna, f
sized cells
Di Lalla
g
area
Di Lalla
cell” basis
ject of the
ile utilizin
lla refers
“CellID”
hat
ed in
lls” are
or
,
,

g
Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

8
example, or are “sectors” associated with a larger “cell” generated by
directional antennae on one or more base stations.
We find that Di Lalla teaches “including in the paging zone sectors
located within a determined distance from” the sector that received the last
location update from the terminal, and “adjusting the sectors included in the
paging zone based on criteria stored for said sector,” as required by claim 1.
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious.4
Appellants do not argue claim 2 or other dependent claims separately,
but assert that “[t]he sector-based approach to determining paging zones
which is specified in independent claim 1 becomes even more apparent
when reviewing the dependent claims,” reciting claim 2 in support. App. Br.
9. Appellants also make the same arguments relating to independent claims
10 and 14, which add the step of “broadcasting a page to said terminal in
each sector in said paging zone.” Id. at 12. For the same reasons discussed
above with respect to independent claim 1, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims as obvious over Di Lalla in view of Tiedemann.

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record as a whole in light of Appellants’
contentions and the preponderance of relevant evidence, we affirm the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5, and 8–20.
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).

4 Because we agree with the Examiner that Di Lalla’s cells are sectors within
the context of claim 1, we do not decide whether claim 1 is limited to “sector
granularity” as asserted by Appellants.
Appeal 2012-003578
Application 11/814,980

9
AFFIRMED

msc