Ex Parte Yamen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2013

10596399 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SONER YAMEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-8 and 10. Claim 9 is canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and device for handling user
equipment in a communications network. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method in a core network node of a communications
network, comprising at least a first access network and a second
access network, for enabling a user equipment to access said
communications network, wherein the first and second access
networks have at least a partially overlapping service area, and
wherein the user equipment located in a partially overlapping
service area can be transferred from the first to the second
access network, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving in said core network node an indication of a
request for transferring a user equipment from said first access
network to said second access network;
checking a transfer permission parameter value
associated to said user equipment;
determining that the transfer permission parameter value
indicates that a transfer of the associated user equipment is
permitted;
determining that the transfer permission parameter value
indicates that the user equipment belongs to a group of user
equipment for which a preferred access network has been
defined; and,
initiating, based on the determination, the transfer of the
user equipment from the first to the second access network.

Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Einola U.S. 6,771,964 B1 Aug. 3, 2004
Rasanen
Lescuyer
U.S. 2002/0045447 A1
EP 1257141 A1
Apr. 18, 2002
Nov. 13, 2002

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Einola and Rasanen. Ans. 4.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Einola, Rasanen, and Lescuyer. Ans. 8.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Einola does not teach a core network node that
a) checks the transfer permission parameter associated to the user
terminal;
b) determines a transfer permission parameter indicating that a transfer
of an associated user equipment is permitted; and
c) user equipment belongs to a group of user equipment for which a
preferred access network has been defined.
App. Br. 5.
2. Rasanen cannot be relied upon for teaching that BSC is a core network
node. App. Br. 7-8.

Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
4
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-8)
the issue presented on appeal is whether the combination of Einola and
Rasanen teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends that Einola “does not disclose that the core
network node checks the transfer permission parameter associated to the
user terminal.” App. Br. 5. According to Appellant, Einola’s call handover
is executed by a controller of the radio access network in response to a
received parameter, i.e., by equipment that is part of a preferred access
network, not by a core network node. Id. Therefore, Appellant argues,
“Einola does not teach or suggest the claimed function of checking a transfer
permission parameter value or the respective determining steps to be
executed by a core network node.” Id.
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive
because they amount to an attack on the references individually when the
rejections are based on a combination of references. Ans. 9 citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413(CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner explains:
Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
5
[The] Einola reference was not relied on solely to show a core
network node performing said functionalities but relied in
combination with Rasanen reference to show a core network node
(MSC) performing said functionality (Rasanen: paragraph [83], MSC
checking transfer parameter; paragraphs [75] and [84], MSC initiating
transfer). Thus, the combination of Einola and Rasanen teaches that a
core network, i.e., MSC, checks the transfer permission associated to
the user terminal and determin[es] whether handover of the call of the
mobile is to be performed.
Ans. 10.
The Examiner finds Einola’s mobile-services switching center
(MSC), a core network node, bases a determination of whether a user is to
go to another network on subscription data and using the Network
Preference Parameter to command the BSC. Ans. 10.
Since clearly the MSC commands the BSC to change networks, the
determination of the transfer permission parameter indicates that a
transfer of an [associated] user equipment is permitted and the user
equipment belongs to a group of user equipments for which a
preferred access network has been defined is performed by the
MSC.
Ans. 11.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis and findings. In particular,
Einola teaches or suggests all of the steps of claim 1, but for all of those
steps being performed entirely and exclusively within Einola’s core network
node. However, because Rasanen discloses an MSC (i.e., a core network
node) that checks a transfer parameter and initiates a transfer, the
combination of Einola and Rasanen teaches or suggests the disputed claim
limitations. Furthermore, while we agree that the combination of references
teaches or suggests the claimed steps as being performed by a core network
node, we note in passing that claim 1 does not preclude action outside the
core network node in support of the disputed limitations. To the contrary,
Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
6
while claim 1 specifies “receiving in said core network node an indication of
a request ,” no corresponding core network node limitations appear in the
recitations of the disputed checking and determining steps. Therefore, in the
absence of sufficient evidence or argument rebutting the Examiner’s
findings, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant additionally argues error in Rasanen’s inclusion of a base
station controller (BSC) among network control devices that are part of a
core network (App. Br. 5-6 citing Rasanen [0038].) However, because the
Examiner does not rely on Rasanen for teaching the BSC as part of the core
network (Ans. 11), we find no error.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claim 1 and, for the same reasons, in rejecting independent
claims 7 and 10. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) together with the
rejection of dependent claims 2-4, and 8, not separately argued, as being
unpatentable over Einola and Rasanen. For the same reasons we affirm the
rejections of dependent claims 5and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Einola, Rasanen, and Lescuyer, these dependent claims
also not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
We find that the combination of Einola and Rasanen teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations and that, therefore, the Examiner did not err
in rejecting claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10 is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-003232
Application 10/596,399
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj