Ex Parte Sanneck et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201814387920 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/387,920 09/25/2014 11051 7590 06/04/2018 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Nokia Technologies Oy 8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor Vienna, VA 22182 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Henning Sanneck 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. 089229.00911 1069 EXAMINER PHUONG,DAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2018 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): sonia.whitney@squirepb.com ipgeneraltyc@squirepb.com nokia.ipr@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENNING SANNECK, PETER SZILAGYI, and CHRISTOPH FRENZEL 1 Appeal2017-011424 Application 14/387,920 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LARRY J. HUME, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34. Claims 15-27, 29, 32, and 35--40 have been canceled. Final Act. 1-2; App. Br. 2. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify Nokia Solutions & Networks Oy as the real party in interest. 2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Sept. 25, 2014 (claiming benefit of PCT/EP2012/055282, filed Mar. 26, 2012) (see footnote 3, infra); Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed Apr. 27, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Sept. 11, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer Appeal2017-011424 Application 14/387,920 We reverse. Appellants' Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns apparatuses, computer readable media, and methods for self-healing in a wireless network. The self-healing process applies multi-layer reasoning and/or sub-cell level reasoning, and the self-healing is based on location information. Multi-layer reasoning may be utilized where the network cells have different coverage areas and/or radio access technology type to integrate information of different cell layers. Sub-cell level reasoning may be utilized to consider fine-granular location information. Spec. 1 :24--2:24; 3 Abstract. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method, comprising: self-healing at least one first cell in a network or at least one second cell in the network, the network comprising the at least one first cell and the at least one second cell, wherein the at least one first cell and the at least one second cell have at least partially overlapping coverage, wherein the self-healing comprises a network device applying at least one of multi-layer reasoning based on a heterogeneous network having a plurality of cells being different ("Ans.") mailed July 19, 2017; and Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 26, 2016. 3 We reference the Specification filed on Sept. 25, 2014, which is a copy of PCT publication WO 2013/143572 Al. The Examiner references paragraph numbers (see, e.g., Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 3--4) that do not appear in the Specification filed on Sept. 25, 2014. It appears the Examiner references Appellants' published Application (US 2015/0017975 Al, published Jan. 15, 2015). 2 Appeal2017-011424 Application 14/387,920 from one another with respect to at least one of coverage area and radio access technology type to integrate information of different cell layers or sub-cell level reasoning to consider fine- granular location information, and wherein the self-healing is based on location information. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-14, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 8,509,762 B2, issued Aug. 13, 2013 (filed Jan.19, 2012)) ("Li") and Awoniyi et al. (US 2012/0082064 Al, published Apr. 5, 2012 (filed Sept. 29, 2011)) ("Awoniyi"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Li and Awoniyi would have taught or suggested: self-healing [by] a network device applying at least one of multi- layer reasoning based on a heterogeneous network having a plurality of cells being different from one another with respect to at least one of coverage area and radio access technology type to integrate information of different cell layers or sub-cell level reasoning to consider fine-granular location information ( claim 1 ), within the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 14, and 28? ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (and independent claims 14, and 28) as being obvious in view of Li and Awoniyi. See Final Act. 3-8; Ans. 3-20. Appellants contend that Li and Awoniyi do not teach the 3 Appeal2017-011424 Application 14/387,920 disputed limitations of claim 1. See App. Br. 5-13; Reply Br. 3-7. Specifically, Appellants contend, inter alia, that Li fails to teach "applying ... multi-layer reasoning based on a heterogeneous network ... to integrate information of different cell layers" (App. Br. 11; see App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-5) and Li fails to teach "applying 'sub-cell level reasoning to consider fine-granular location information' as recited in claim 1" (App. Br. 8; see App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 5-7). We agree with Appellants that the Examiner-cited portions of Li do not clearly describe the disputed limitations of applying "multi-layer reasoning" and/or "sub-cell level reasoning," and that the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how the cited portions of Li teach or suggest these features. See Reply Br. 3-7. In particular, we find the Examiner's claim interpretation (that the "'multi-layer reasoning' ... integrate[s] information of different cell layers" and "'sub-cell level reasoning' includes processing network (cell) measurements" (Ans. 3)) does not clarify the issue, and the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Li teaches such "multi-layer reasoning" and/or "sub-cell level reasoning" (see Li, col. 5, 1. 28---col. 6, 1. 43; col. 7, 1. 33---col. 8, 1. 32; col. 19, 1. 31---col. 20, 1. 56; Fig. 1 ). Indeed, as pointed out by Appellants, Li describes grouping cells (into critical zones) based on collected data ( (Key Performance Indicators (KPis) ), but does not describe integrating information from different cell layers. See Reply Br. 4--5; Spec. 5:6-23. As further pointed out by Appellants, Li describes collecting and analyzing MDT4 and other information, but does not 4 MDT is an acronym for minimization of drive tests. 4 Appeal2017-011424 Application 14/387,920 specifically describe collecting information that can be utilized to analyze areas smaller than a cell. See Reply Br. 5-7; Spec. 10:7-25; 13:9-20. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Li and Awoniyi renders obvious Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 28 include limitations of commensurate scope. Dependent claims 2-13, 30, 31, 33, and 34 depend on and stand with claims 1 and 28, respectively. CONCLUSION Appellants have persuasively shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 34. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation