Ex Parte Su et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 15, 2019

14825494 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/825,494 08/13/2015
81310 7590 02/20/2019
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li Su
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.
8888-49601 9215
EXAMINER
SHAHEED, KHALID W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2019 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI SU and YINGJIE ZHAO 1
Appeal2018-005022
Application 14/825,494
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, and 18-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005022
Application 14/825,494
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "methods for performing
handover operations triggered by a user equipment." Spec. ,r 2.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A wireless communication device comprising:
one or more antennas configured to transmit and receive
wireless communication over a wireless network; and
processing hardware configured to interoperate with the
one or more antennas and cause the wireless communication
device to:
measure a current serving base station and one or more
neighbor base stations upon the wireless communication device
entering an on-duration of a connected discontinuous (C-DRX)
mode of operation;
select a best neighbor base station from the one or more
neighbor base stations as a new serving base station responsive
to measuring the current serving base station and the one or more
neighbor base stations; and
transmit a radio resource control (RRC) connection-
reestablishment message to the new serving base station to have
the new serving base station initiate a handover operation to the
new serving base station.
App. Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10-12, 14, 15, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon the combined teachings of Lindoff (US
2012/0087264 Al, published April 12, 2012) and Larsson (US
2012/0236707 Al, published September 20, 2012).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the combined teachings of Lindoff, Larsson, and Kone (US
2011/0028150 Al, published February 3, 2011).
2
Appeal2018-005022
Application 14/825,494
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the combined teachings of Lindo ff, Larsson, and Shi (US
2012/0270552 Al, published October 25, 2012).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Lindo ff teaches all of the claim limitations,
except for "transmit[ting] a radio resource control (RRC) connection-
reestablishment message to the new serving base station to have the new
serving base station initiate a handover operation to the new serving base
station," as recited in claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 7 and 14.
Final Act. 6, 8. The Examiner finds Larsson teaches this contested
limitation. Id.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Larsson teaches the
contested limitation because Larsson's "handover operation is initiated by
the current serving base station to the new serving base station, and not by
the new serving base station to the new serving base station as recited"
( emphases omitted). App. Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. See App.
Br. 7-13; Reply Br. 2-7.
The Examiner finds Larsson's paragraph 51 recites "an RRC
connection Reestablishment Request message is sent to the original radio
base station" and "[t]he user equipment [UE] can implement 'redirection'
information in its possession that is based on the RRC Connection
Reestablishment information. The redirection information can be utilized to
send a RRC connection establishment request to an alternative radio base
station (see [00510])." Ans. 8-9. Thus, the Examiner asserts, the RRC
connection establishment request redirects information to the new alternative
base station and a unit in the mobile station receives the RRC Connection
3
Appeal2018-005022
Application 14/825,494
Reestablishment message and cooperates with a unit for receiving
redirection information. Therefore, a handover to the new alternative base
station is initiated from the RRC connection reestablishment request and
redirection information. Ans. 9. We do not agree.
Appellants correctly assert Larsson teaches a handover operation is
initiated by a current serving base station in response to a "wireless
communication device unsuccessfully attempting to reestablish a failed radio
link with the current serving base station," in contrast to Appellants' claimed
handover operation initiated by the new serving base station in response to
the new serving base station receiving an RRC connection-reestablishment
message from the wireless communication device. See App. Br. 7-9; see
also Spec.,r,r 7-9. We also agree with Appellants, the recited "use of an
RRC connection-reestablishment message differs from the established prior
art use" and the recited "selection of a new serving base station is not
identical to nor is it interchangeable with initiating a handover" ( emphases
omitted). Reply Br. 3, 4--5.
As we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 14, argued together, and claims 3---6, 9-13, 15,
16, and 18-20, dependent therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-16, and 18-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
4