Ex Parte Schliwa-Bertling et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201613119988 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/119,988 03/21/2011 Paul Schliwa-Bertling 3602-257 6171 6449 7590 12/23/2016 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14th Street, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER DAYA, TEJIS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2472 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): PTO-PAT-Email @rfem. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL SCHLIWA-BERTLING, JENS BERGQVIST, and CLAES-GORAN PERSSON Appeal 2016-004117 Application 13/119,988 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN R. KENNY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004117 Application 13/119,988 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 28—31, and 33—35, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “transmission of [Earthquake Tsunami Warning System] primary notifications to User Equipment accessing the cellular radio system using [a GSM Evolution (GSM/EDGE) Radio Access Network].” (Spec. 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary: 1. A method in a base station subsystem (BSS) for providing an earthquake and tsunami warning system notification message to a user equipment (UE) accessing a cellular radio system using a GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network (GERAN), wherein the UE is in a packet transfer mode and the BSS uses a Common Control Channel (CCCH) to communicate information to UEs, the method comprising: the BSS receiving an earthquake and tsunami warning system notification from an emergency center, and the BSS, in response to receiving the earthquake and tsunami warning system notification, providing a warning system notification to the UE, wherein the step of providing the warning system notification comprises: i) the BSS transmitting to the UE a Packet Temporary Block Flow (TBF) Release message that configures the UE to listen to the CCCH, and 1 Appellants identify “Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)” as the real party in interest. (See App. Br. 2.) 2 Appeal 2016-004117 Application 13/119,988 ii) the BSS transmitting the warning system notification on the CCCH after transmitting the control message. THE REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Leeetal. US 8,213,896 B2 July 3, 2012 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS) Requirements; Stage 1 (Release 8), 3GPP TS 22.168 V8.1.0 (June 2008) (“TS 22.168”) 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group GSM/EDGE Radio Access Network; General Packet Ra dio Service (GPRS); Mobile Station (MS) - Base Station System (BSS) Interface; Radio Link Control/Medium Access Control (RLC/MAC) Protocol (Release 8), 3GPP TS 44.060 V8.1.0 (May 2008) (“TS 44.060”) THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 30, 31, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over TS 22.168 and Lee. (See Final Act. 2-4.) 2. Claims 28, 29, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over TS 22.168, Lee, and TS 44.060. (See Final Act. 4—5.) 3 Appeal 2016-004117 Application 13/119,988 ANALYSIS Appellants argue the rejections are in error because the cited art does not teach or suggest the base station subsystem “transmitting to the [user equipment] a Packet Temporary Block Flow (TBF) Release message that configures the [user equipment] to listen to the [common control channel].” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted).) The Examiner responds as follows: The prior art discloses a paging message that carries the config uration to the UE to have the UE listen to a channel for an ETWS message at scheduled time both the application and prior art work exactly in the same manner because a message is sent from the base station to the UE (regardless of what the message is called) and using the message to configure the UE to listen for a warning message. Lee discloses Col. 7 lines 15-17, UEs receive primary indication of the warning by finding out of the ETWS specific common channel configuration in SIB; Col. 8 Lines 6-8, system information on the paging message for primary indication trans fers ETWS scheduling information. (Ans. 6, emphasis omitted.) Appellants reply that “the Examiner has chosen to ignore an express claim limitation,” namely that the paging message be “a Packet Temporary Block Flow (TBF) Release message.” (Reply Br. 2, emphasis omitted.) We agree with Appellants. Although Lee teaches a method of notifying a UE that an ETWS message is available, it fails to teach or suggest doing so with a Packet Temporary Block Flow Release, as claimed.2 The Examiner does not find that Lee uses a Packet Temporary Block Flow 2 See TS 22.168, at 24 (“A Temporary Block Flow is ... a physical connection used by the two RR peer entities to support the unidirectional transfer of LLC PDUs on packet data physical channels.”; “The term ‘release’ as applied to TBF is used when the TBF is stopped using one of the Release of TBF procedures defined in clause 9.”). 4 Appeal 2016-004117 Application 13/119,988 Release, nor does the Examiner find that Lee’s disclosure would have made it obvious to a skilled artisan to use a Packet Temporary Block Flow Release. (See Final Act. 3; Ans. 6.) For this reason, we agree that the Examiner has not established a prima face case of obviousness and, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, 28—31, and 33—35, all of which require “a Packet Temporary Block Flow (TBF) Release message that configures the UE to listen to the CCCH.” DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 28—31, and 33—35 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation