Ex Parte SINGH et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2019

14593800 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/593,800 01/09/2015
12371 7590 01/31/2019
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
Damanjit SINGH
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.
QC145642 6039
EXAMINER
SINGH, HIRDEPAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAMANJIT SINGH
and YELIZ TOKGOZ 1
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON PENICK, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellants' Specification relates to wireless telecommunications such
as cellular networks, and specifically to handling requests for a user
equipment (UE) to be serviced by a small cell base station. Spec. ,r,r 1, 2, 7,
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm, Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br.
3.
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
and 27-28. A small cell base station is "typically [a] low-power base
station[]" which may supplement macro cell base stations. Id. ,r,r 2, 29. A
macro cell base station provides coverage to a large number of users. Id.
,r 28. "[A]s a user device moves through such a mixed communication
network environment that provides both macro cell and small cell coverage,
the user device may be served in certain locations by macro cell base
stations, at other locations by small cell base stations, and, in some
scenarios, by both macro cell and small cell base stations." Id. ,r 38. In
certain situations, however, transfers of a UE to a small cell base station may
be undesirable. Id. ,r,r 52-55. The Specification describes how a small cell
base station
can mitigate undesirable inter-frequency handovers from macro
cell base stations by determining if an incoming inter-frequency
handover from a macro cell base station ... is desirable. If the
handover is desirable, the small cell base station can accept the
handover, and if it is undesirable, the small cell base station can
reject the handover.
Id. ,I 56.
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 18, 29, and 30 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is exemplary:
1. A method of handling undesirable inter-
frequency cell changes, comprising:
receiving, at a small cell base station, a request to
perform a cell change of a user equipment (UE) from a
base station serving the UE to the small cell base station,
wherein the base station serving the UE is operating on a
different frequency than the small cell base station;
2
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
receiving, at the small cell base station from the
base station, parameters related to one or more previous
cell changes performed by the UE;
determining whether or not the cell change is
desirable based on the parameters related to the one or
more previous cell changes; and
accepting or rejecting, at the small cell base
station, the request to perform the cell change based on
the determining.
Re} ections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 18, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over a combination ofMildh et al. (US 2013/0231116 Al;
published Sept. 5, 2013, hereinafter "Mildh"), Yiu et al. (US 2015/0215837
Al; published July 30, 2015, hereinafter "Yiu"), and Kim et al. (US
2015/0087313 Al; published Mar. 26, 2015, hereinafter "Kim"). Final
Action 3---6.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 15-22, and 27-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over a combination of Oh et al. (US
2015/0230148 Al; published Aug. 13, 2015, hereinafter "Oh") and Kim.
Final Action 6-11.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over a combination of Oh, Kim, and Park et al. (US
2014/0376363 Al; published Dec. 25, 2014, hereinafter "Park"). Final Action
11-12.
The Examiner rejects claims 11-14, 23-26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over a combination of Oh, Kim, and Yiu. Final
Action 12-14.
3
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
ANALYSIS
Issues: (A) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Mildh, Yiu, and Kim teaches or suggests "receiving, at the small cell base
station from the base station, parameters related to one or more previous cell
changes performed by the UE," as recited in claim 1?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Oh and
Kim teaches or suggests "receiving, at the small cell base station from the
base station, parameters related to one or more previous cell changes
performed by the UE," as recited in claim 1?
(A) Rejection over a combination of Mildh, Yiu, and Kim
Appellants argue claims 1, 18, 29, and 30 together as a group (Appeal
Br. 5-7), so we select claim 1 as representative. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
The Examiner makes a finding that Mildh teaches "receiving, from
the base station, parameters related to one or more previous cell changes."
Final Action 4 (emphasis added). The Examiner notes Mildh's disclosure
that "a control node ... has access to historical transaction information for a
served mobile station, which may be used ... to improve handover
decisions." Final Action 4 (quoting Mildh ,r 10; also citing id. ,r,r 23, 28).
Appellants argue that this finding "makes no mention of the claimed
'receiving, at the small cell base station from the base station"' such
parameters. Appeal Br. 5 ( quoting claim 1 with added emphasis).
Appellants argue that the Examiner "at most alleges only that Mildh teaches
a separate 'control node"' having access to historical transaction
information. Id. 5---6. Thus, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not
4
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
shown that Mildh teaches or suggests the "receiving" step, which requires
the parameters be received at the small cell base station. Id.
The Examiner responds that Kim was brought in to address
deficiencies in Mildh's teachings relating to the claim element regarding
"accepting or rejecting, at the small cell base station, the request to perform
the cell change based on the determining." Answer 17-18; see also Final
Action 5-6. The Examiner notes Kim's discussion of a UE handover to an
"unprepared" small cell----one that does not have state/ context information
for the handover. Answer 17 (citing Kim ,r 63). Thus, the Examiner
reasons, Kim suggests a prepared small cell, for which "state information for
UE handover is acquired from Base station." Id. The Examiner further
notes Kim's discussion of calculation and estimation of mobility history for
a node. Id. at 17-20 (citing Kim ,r,r 7, 8, 33, 43).
We agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner's focus
on the "accepting or rejecting" limitation does not directly address the
"receiving, at the small cell base station from the base station" limitation.
Additionally, we agree with Appellants that, "even if it can be inferred [from
Kim] that a small cell may in other instances acquire 'the state context of the
cell for handover of the UE,' the state context information that allows
handover to be setup successfully is not the same as the mobility state
information that indicates a UE' s speed, number of cell reselections, etc."
Reply Br. 3--4. We also agree that to the extent Kim discusses a UE
calculating mobility state information ("parameters related to one or more
previous cell changes performed by the UE"), this information is disclosed
as being received from a UE by a base station, not that it is received or used
"at a small cell base station from the base station." See id. at 4.
5
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
based on the combination ofMildh, Yiu, and Kim of claims 1, 18, 29, and
30.
(B) Rejections over a combination including Oh
Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 15-22, and 27-29 together as a
group, so we select claim 1 as representative. See Appeal Br. 7-10; 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
In the Final Action, the Examiner makes findings that Oh teaches
"receiving, from the base station, parameters related to one or more previous
cell changes." Final Action 6 (emphasis added). The Examiner notes Oh's
disclosure of a cell position database which accumulates information
regarding the lengths of stays for terminals (UEs) in cells. Id. at 6-7 ( citing
Oh ,r,r 39, 40).
Appellants again argue that this finding "makes no mention of the
claimed 'receiving, at the small cell base station from the base station,"'
such parameters. Appeal Br. 7-8 ( quoting claim 1 with added emphasis).
Appellants argue that the cell position database of Oh is not accessible by
the source base station or the target base station of the handover process of
Oh. Id. at 8. We agree.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds, referring again to Kim, which
the Examiner again finds "as discussed in detail above [ with relation to the
Mildh/Yiu/Kim combination] discloses accepting or rejecting request for
cell change based on determining that is based on the parameters of previous
cell change, performed at small cell base station." Answer 21. As discussed
above, we do not find such a teaching or suggestion in Kim.
6
Appeal2017-03248
Application 14/593,800
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 15-22, and 27-29 based on the combination of Oh
and Kim. The rejections of claims 3, 5, 11-14, 23-26, and 30 are argued on
substantially the same basis, and the Examiner does not find that the
limitation discussed above is taught or suggested by the other prior art
references combined with Oh and Kim in the rejections of those claims. See
Appeal Br. 10-11; Final Act. 11-14. Thus, we additionally do not sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 18, 29, and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over a combination of Mildh, Yiu,
and Kim.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10,
15-22, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over a combination
of Oh and Kim.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 3 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over a combination of Oh, Kim, and Park.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-14, 23-26,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over a combination of Oh,
Kim, and Yiu.
REVERSED
7