Ex Parte Ren et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201613576354 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/576,354 07 /31/2012 129113 7590 08/30/2016 Motorola, a Lenovo Company 222 West Merchandise Mart Plaza Chicago, IL 60654 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Weili Ren 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. Ql40881 1252 EXAMINER OBAYANJU, OMONIYI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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.lenovo@motorola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WEILI REN and JON VAN ORDEN Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9, 11through18, 20 through 26, and 28 through 31, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for routing communications between a first and second user equipment in a communications network. A 1 Appellants canceled claim 10 in the Amendment after Final (mailed Feb. 28, 2014). The Examiner entered the amendment. See Advisory Act. 1. Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 determination as to whether the a second user equipment is within network coverage of the access point base station the first user equipment is registered to or a further access point base station, and routing the communication via one or more of the access point base stations in dependence upon the result of the determination. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reproduced below: 1. A method for routing a communication in a communications network between a first User Equipment (UE) registered with an access point base station and a second UE, the access point base station positioned at least partially within range of one or more macro base stations, the method comprising: making a determination as to whether the second UE is within network coverage of the access point base station or one or more further access point base stations positioned at least partially within range of the one or more macro base stations, by searching, using a UE identifier and a look-up table, for an identifier indicating whether the second UE is within coverage of the access point base station or the further access point base stations; routing the communication via one or more of the access point base stations based on the determination; and broadcasting, by each of the access point base stations, to all others of the access point base stations, data updating the look-up table. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 15 through 18, 20, 22 through 24, 29, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 2 Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 Abraham (US 2010/0220642 Al; publ. Sept. 2, 2010) and Kalhan (US 2008/0130597 Al; publ. June 5, 2008). Final Act. 5-9.2 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abraham and Abramsky (US 2010/00240347 Al; publ. Sept. 23, 2010). Final Act. 10-17. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 28, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Abraham, Kalhan, and Abramsky. Final Act. 17-19. ISSUES Appellants' arguments on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 and 4 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a), present us with the following issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Abraham and Kalhan teaches or make obvious broadcasting by each access point base station, to all other access point base stations, data updating the lookup table as recited in claim 1? 2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Abraham and Kalhan teaches searching using a user equipment identifier and a look-up table for an identifier indicating whether the second user equipment is within coverage of the access point base station or the other access point base stations as recited in claim 1? 2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, dated June 11, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief, dated October 14, 2014 ("Reply Br."), the Final Office Action, mailed November 29, 2013 ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer, mailed August 12, 2014 ("Answer"). 3 Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 Appellants' arguments on pages 10 and 11 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4 and 5 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a), present us with the following issue: 3) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Abraham and Abramsky teaches the access point base station with which the first user equipment is registered broadcasts a local area network paging international mobile subscriber identity message to the access point as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue are directed to Kalhan. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants assert that Kalhan merely discloses one access point receiving identification from a core network to update a user list, which is not a broadcasting by each of the access point base stations to all other access point base stations as claimed. App. Br. 8. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, finding that Abraham teaches the use of lookup tables and communication between femtocells and Kalhan teaches the concept of transmitting or broadcasting identification of users from one access point to another. Answer 3 (citing Abraham Figs. IA, 2A- 2D, para. 41 ). We concur with the Examiner. We note that claim 1 recites an access point base station and one or more further access stations, thus, the scope of claim 1 is such that there are two access point base stations and as such a broadcast to all of the other access points, is merely a communication to the other base station (i.e., a 4 Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 communication from one access point to the other (one) further access station). The Examiner has found, and we concur, that Abraham teaches the femtocells make use of look up tables to route calls to user devices. See, e.g., paras. 41and56. Further, Abraham's description of Figure 2D discusses the femtocells directly communicating with each other to determine whether a user device is connected to another femtocell. See para. 49. Thus, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner's finding that the combination of Abraham and Kalhan teach or make obvious broadcasting by each access point base station, to all other access point base stations, data updating the lookup table as recited in claim 1. Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue, similarly are directed to Kalhan and assert that the user list in Kalhan does not teach whether or not a user equipment is within a coverage of the access point. App. Br. 8-9. We are not persuaded of error by this argument. As discussed above with respect to the first issue, the Examiner relied upon the combination of Abraham and Kalhan. Also as discussed above, Abraham's description of Figure 2D does teach a determination of whether the user equipment is within the coverage area of another femtocell. See para. 49. We consider this teaching of Abraham in conjunction with Abraham's teaching directed to the use of lookup tables and Kalhan's teaching of transmitting an update a list of users, to teach the disputed limitation. Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiners' rejection of claim 1 and claims 3, 4, 7, 13, 15 through 18, 20, 22 through 24, 29, and 31 grouped with claim 1. 5 Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 Independent claim 11 Appellants' argument directed to the third issue rejection are directed to Kalhan. App Br 10. As Kalhan is not part of the rejection of claim 11, these arguments are not persuasive. Appellants further argue that Abraham's signaling is not a broadcast as it is routed between access points. App. Br. 10 (citing Abraham para. 49) and Reply Br. 4--5. We are not persuaded of error by these arguments, within the context of claim 11 this is a difference without distinction. Claim 11 recites an access point base station or a further access point base station, thus similar to our discussion of claim 1, a broadcast to all of the other access points, is merely a communication to the other base station. We note that Appellants, for the first time in the Reply Brief, assert that the claimed IMSI message is different than the data disclosed in Abraham and as such the combination of Abraham and Abramsky could not be achieved. Appellants have not shown good cause as to why these arguments could not be presented earlier. As such, this argument has not been considered, and is waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 14 73-7 4 (BP AI 2010) (informative) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address arguments in Reply Brief that could have been presented in the principal Appeal Brief). Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to claim 11 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 and claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 21, 25, and 26 grouped with claim 11. 6 Appeal2015-000696 Application 13/576,354 Appellants have not presented arguments directed to the rejections of 9, 28, and 30, accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections proforma. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 7, 9, 11 through 18, 20 through 26, and 28 through 31. 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. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation