Ex Parte Wager et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2018

14381492 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/381,492 08/27/2014
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
08/08/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefan Wager
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.
017997.0368 1024
EXAMINER
WEI,SIREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2018 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte STEFAN WAGER
and MATS SAGFORS
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/3 81,492 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 12-15, 18-25, 28, 29, 32-
35, and 38--41. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 26, 27, 30, 31, 36, and 37 were cancelled
previously. Claims App'x 1-8.
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/381,492
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to re-establishment of a connection
between a wireless network and user equipment after detecting connectivity
problems, where a timer is used. Spec. 1:5-8.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, 22, and 32 are independent. Claim 1 is representative
and is reproduced below.
1. Method in a user equipment, UE, for controlling
connection re-establishment between said user equipment and a
network, said user equipment being served in a first cell
comprised in said network, characterized by the steps of
receiving a configuration message from the network
defining at least one condition;
upon detection of connectivity problems towards the
first cell:
starting a timer; and
evaluating said at least one condition;
if said at least one condition is fulfilled for a
neighboring cell:
stopping the timer before the timer expires; and
initiating connection re-establishment to said
neighboring cell.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 9, 12, 22, 29, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Cho (US 2010/0222055 Al; published Sept. 2,
2010) in view of Lee (US 2010/0093356 Al; published Apr. 15, 2010).
2
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/381,492
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 33,
34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Cho, Lee, and Wang (US
2009/0005029 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009).
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 18, 28, and 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Cho, Lee, and Korpela (US 2001/0031638 Al; published Oct.
18, 2001).
The Examiner has rejected claims 19 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Cho, Lee, Korpela, and Yang (US 2012/0039226 Al; published Feb.
16, 2012).
The Examiner has rejected claims 20, 21, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Cho, Lee, Korpela, and Fukuzawa (US 2009/0318155 Al;
published Dec. 24, 2009).
ISSUE
Appellants argue, on pages 7-9 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2--4 of
the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 12-15, 18-25,
28, 29, 32-35, and 38--41 are in error. These arguments present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding Lee teaches or suggests a timer
that can be stopped, as required in claim 1, and similarly required
in claims 12, 22, and 32?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
3
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/381,492
error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 12-15, 18-25, 28, 29,
32-35, and 38--41.
Independent claim 1 recites, "starting a timer; and ... stopping the
timer before the timer expires." Claims App'x 1.
The Examiner finds Lee teaches using timers based on priority, where
a lower priority timer can be preempted by a higher priority timer. Final
Act. 3--4. Further, the Examiner finds that once a higher priority timer
expires and a condition is met, all other unexpired lower priority timers are
unnecessary, and it would have been obvious to stop those timers versus
letting them run until they expire. Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue Lee fails to teach or suggest a timer is stopped, but
rather only teaches the timers run until they expire. App. Br. 7-8. Further,
Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide evidence in support of the
Examiner's findings regarding stopping a timer. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3.
Thus, Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
The Supreme Court guides: "If a person of ordinary skill can
implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability." KSR
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Additionally, "[ w ]hen
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
[in the art] has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her
technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Id. at
421.
Regarding using a timer once a condition has been met or the timer is
no longer needed, there would have been a limited set of options available at
4
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/381,492
the time of the invention: (1) let the timer run until expiration or (2) stop the
timer. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Lee does teach stopping a timer
before it expires in the event that the time is no longer needed because a
condition is no longer met. App. Br. 7-8; see Reply Br. 2; Lee ,r 50 ("If the
signal property value of the neighbor cell is less than the threshold while the
reselection timer is running, the reselection timer may be stopped.").
Further, although Lee does not teach stopping the lower priority timer after
the high priority timer expires, stopping all unnecessary timers would be a
predictable variation. As such, we agree with the Examiner's determination
that it would have been obvious, based on the limited number of options
available and as a predictable variation, to stop the lower priority unexpired
timers versus letting them run until expiration. See Ans. 6-7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 12, 22,
and 32 recite similar limitations as claim 1. Claims App'x 3, 5, 7. Claims
2--4, 7, and 9 depend from claim 1; claims 13-15 and 18-21 depend from
claim 12; claims 23-25, 28, and 29 depend from claim 22; and claims 33-35
and 38--41 depend from claim 32. Claims App'x 1-8. Appellants do not
present separate arguments for independent claims 12, 22, and 32 or
dependent claims 2--4, 7, 9, 13-15, 18-21, 23-25, 28, 29, 33-35, and 38--41.
App. Br. 8-9. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 7, 9,
12-15, 18-25, 28, 29, 32-35, and 38--41 for the same reasons as detailed
above for claim 1.
5
Appeal2018-002167
Application 14/381,492
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 12-15, 18-25, 28, 29,
32-35, and 38--41 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6