Ex Parte Xing et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 18, 201512298184 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2015) 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. 12/298,184 05/26/2009 Pingping Xing LUTZ 200908US01 5698 48116 7590 05/19/2015 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER NGUYEN, DINH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PINGPING XING, ZHONGJI HU, YU CHEN, and HUA CHAO ____________________ Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention is directed to “establishing a service in a first frequency in a communication network, wherein the first frequency does not support the service or supports it in a limited way.” Abstract. In a disclosed embodiment, when a desired service is not supported on a first frequency, a second frequency, which is suitable for the service, is selected and used. Spec. 3. Representative claims 1 and 5 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A method for establishing a service in a first frequency in a communication network, said method comprises the steps of: determining said service to be established; and re-selecting to a second frequency that is suitable for said service or re-directing to a second frequency that is suitable for said service, so as to carry out said service in said second frequency; wherein said first frequency does not support said service or supports it in a limited way. 5. A method according to claim 4, wherein said communication network comprises user equipment and if said user equipment is in an idle mode, said user equipment initiates a cell re- selecting process so as to re-select to said second frequency from said first frequency. Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 3 The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Putcha et al. (US 2006/0126590 A1; June 15, 2006) (“Putcha”). Final Act. 2–4. 2. Claims 3, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Putcha and Jeong et al. (US 2006/0058047 A1; Mar. 16, 2006) (“Jeong”). Final Act. 4–7. Issues on Appeal 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Putcha teaches or suggests a first frequency in a communication network that “does not support [a] service or supports it in a limited way,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Putcha teaches or suggests user equipment, when idle, initiating the cell re-selection process so as to re- select to a second frequency as set forth in claim 5? ANALYSIS1 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated August 7, 2012, Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated December 3, 2012, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed on October 2, 2012, and the Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed on September 26, 2011, from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 4 Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2–7. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 Appellants contend “Putcha does not teach or suggest that a given frequency does not support a given service or supports it in a limited way.” App. Br. 6. In particular, Appellants argue the passages cited by the Examiner are silent regarding this limitation. Id. Further, Appellants contend Putcha only relates to MBMS (i.e., multimedia broadcast multiple service) services and that the frequencies discussed in Putcha, therefore, fully support MBMS services. Id. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. As relied upon by the Examiner, Putcha teaches an embodiment wherein “[o]ne broadcast frequency may be dedicated to one service or may transmit multiple services.” Putcha ¶ 45 (emphases added); see also Ans. 4–5. Appellants’ conclusion that this passage makes clear “the frequencies discussed in Putcha fully support multiple MBMS services” (App. Br. 6) ignores the express language that a frequency may be dedicated to one service and further disregards the permissiveness of supporting multiple services. Further, Putcha states “the operator may also choose to multicast or broadcast different services on different frequencies; i.e.[,] broadcast service type 1 on frequency F1, broadcast service type 2 on frequency F2 and so on.” Putcha ¶ 45 (emphasis added). Putcha also teaches if a user is subscribed to broadcast service 1 but is camped on frequency F2, the user would need to reselect and configure to frequency F1 to use broadcast service 1. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that an artisan Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 5 of ordinary skill would appreciate that in the example set forth in paragraph 45 of Putcha, the first frequency F1 does not support broadcast service type 2 and the second frequency F2 does not support broadcast service type 1. Ans. 5. For the reasons discussed supra, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Putcha. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, which contain similar recitations. Dependent claims 5 and 12 Appellants argue Putcha fails to teach or suggest user equipment, in an idle state, initiates a cell re-selection process to a second frequency. App. Br. 6–7. In particular, Appellants contend a mobile device camped on a frequency, as in Putcha, does not imply it is in an idle state. Id. Further, Appellants contend the mobile device in Putcha, as relied upon by the Examiner, continues to receive MBMS data and is notified of the second frequency, as opposed to initiating any re-selection or identification of a second frequency, as required by claims 5 and 12. App. Br. 7. In response, the Examiner states “an artisan skilled in the art would have recognized [paragraph 23 of Putcha] is implying that there are instants that the mobile camps on the first frequency without receiving data” while the mobile device is in an idle mode. Ans. 6. Additionally, the Examiner identifies paragraph 32 of Putcha as teaching wherein “the user device 104 is in idle mode and not engaged in any data transfer . . . .” Putcha ¶ 32 Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 6 (emphasis added); Ans. 7. Thus, Putcha teaches a user device being in an idle state. Putcha further teaches or suggests if the user device (in an idle state) receives a notification of an MBMS transmission to which it is subscribed, the user device determines whether to configure itself to receive the MBMS data session on a different (i.e., second) frequency. Ans. 7; Putcha ¶ 32, see also id. ¶ 23 (“Once the user device 104 receives 304 the notification of the second MBMS data session 112, the user device 104 switches to the second frequency 114 for the reception of the second MBMS data session.”). Putcha also teaches radio configuration data need not be sent to the user device as part of a notification message, but rather may be pre-programmed into the user device. Putcha ¶¶ 33, 36. The Examiner concludes, therefore, the “user equipment initiates a cell re-selecting process so as to re-select to [a] second frequency from [a] first frequency . . . .” Ans. 6–7. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions and find Putcha teaches or suggests “if [a] user equipment is in an idle mode, said user equipment initiates a cell re- selecting process so as to re-select to [a] second frequency from [a] first frequency.” For the reasons discussed supra, we find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5 and 12. Dependent claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20 Claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20 depend, directly or indirectly, from independent claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively. Separate patentability is not argued for these dependent claims. Accordingly, we also Appeal 2013-002524 Application 12/298,184 7 sustain the rejections of claims 2–4, 6–8, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 16–20 for similar reasons. DECISION The rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation