Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 23, 2014

11462635 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 2014)

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.
11/462,635 08/04/2006 Shengqiang Yang 4202-00100 5594
97698 7590 07/23/2014
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
AFSHAR, KAMRAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2014 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 SHENGQIANG YANG
____________

Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and
MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–22.1 Claims 3 and 16 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a paging method in a wireless network
using a paging list. (See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 19.) Claim 1, which is illustrative,
reads as follows:

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Huawei Technologies
Co, Ltd. (Br. 3.)
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

2
1. A wireless network component comprising:
a processor configured to implement steps including:
receiving a request to establish communications with a
wireless terminal;
subsequently generating a paging list comprising a
plurality of cells using a location data for a wireless terminal,
wherein the generating step comprises creating the paging list
using the location data to define a base cell, and expanding the
paging list using a spatial data to define an adjacent cell; and
paging the wireless terminal using the cells in the paging
list.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Andersson WO 98/59516 Dec. 30, 1998
Tiedemann US 2001/0034233 Al Oct. 25, 2001

Claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17–20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Andersson. (Ans. 3.)
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andersson and Tiedemann. (Ans. 9.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–15, 17, 18, and 20–22 but agree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19.

Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

3
Independent Claims 1 and 17
Appellant argues on pages 8 to 10 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 17 is in error. The
dispositive issue presented by these arguments is as follows: Did the
Examiner err in finding Andersson discloses expanding a paging list using
spatial data to define an adjacent cell?
Appellant contends that “Andersson only uses the WT’s location
data, not any spatial data, to create his Paging Hotlist” and that “spatial
data is never used to expand, add to, update, or otherwise alter Andersson’s
Paging Hotlist.” (Br. 9.) In response, the Examiner finds that adding
adjacent cells to the Paging Hotlist described in Figure 1 and page 5, lines
23–24 and 26–30 of Andersson inherently discloses using spatial data to
define an adjacent cell and expanding a paging list using the spatial data.
(See Ans. 10.) We concur. We further note that the passages of Andersson
cited by the Examiner describe mobile units being handed over to adjacent
cells that are physically next to a base cell and the adjacent cells being added
to the Paging Hotlist, which inherently discloses using spatial data to expand
a paging list. (See Andersson 5:21–24.) Hence, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 17, and
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being
anticipated by Andersson.

Independent Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Appellant contends that Andersson does not
disclose a probability for a wireless terminal to respond to paging messages
sent by the base transceiver station covering a cell. (Br. 10.) Appellant,
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

4
however, does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Andersson teaches the
likelihood—i.e., probability—that a mobile station is likely to be found in a
cell (by responding to a paging message), but, rather, argues that Andersson
does not calculate any probabilities or teach any probabilities that are
expressed as numbers. (See Br. 11–12.) In response, the Examiner finds
that calculation of probabilities is not recited by claim 13. (Ans. 11.) We
further note that a probability that is expressed as a number is also not
recited by claim 13. Hence, we are not persuaded of error and therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13.

Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 21
Appellant has not separately argued any of the rejections of the
following dependent claims: claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 21, which
depend from claim 1; claim 14, which depends from claim 13; and claim 18,
which depends from claim 17. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above
with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 17.

Claim 5
Appellant argues on pages 13 to 14 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Andersson
discloses “the adjacent cell is physically next to the cells associated with the
location data,” as recited in claim 5?
In arguing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5, which depends
from claim 1, Appellant essentially relies on the same argument discussed
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

5
above with respect to claim 1: that is, “[s]ince Andersson does not teach any
spatial data, Andersson cannot teach that an adjacent cell defined by the
spatial data is physically next to the cells associated with the location data.”
(Br. 14.) As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Andersson discloses expanding a paging list using
spatial data. We further note that the passages of Andersson cited by the
Examiner describe mobile units being handed over to adjacent cells that are
physically next to a base cell and adding the adjacent cells to the Paging
Hotlist (see Andersson 5:21–24). Hence, we are not persuaded of error and
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.

Claim 9
Appellant argues on pages 14 to 15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Andersson
discloses “the cells in the paging list are prioritized based on the distance
from the base cell” as recited in claim 9?
Appellant contends that Andersson teaches prioritizing cells in a
paging list “based on their age, not based on their distance from the base
cell.” (Br. 15, citing Andersson 5:26-30.) In response, the Examiner finds
that initially paging a mobile station in the cell where the mobile station is
currently registered described in page 6, lines 14–18 of Andersson inherently
discloses prioritizing based on distance. (See Ans. 11.) We acknowledge
Appellant’s citation to page 5, lines 26–30 of Andersson to teach prioritizing
the cells in a paging list based on a chronological order, i.e., prioritizing cells
in the order of most recent connection with a mobile station. (See also
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

6
Andersson 5:14–16, 21–24.) However, to the extent that Appellant is
arguing prioritizing based on a chronological order is mutually exclusive
from prioritizing based on distance, such mutual exclusivity is not required
by claim 9. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 9 because, as indicated by the Examiner (see Ans. 11), the
cited passages of Andersson inherently disclose prioritizing at least some
cells in a paging list based on the distance from a base cell. (See also
Andersson Fig. 1; 5:14–16, 21–24.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 9.

Claims 10 and 20
Appellant argues on pages 15 to 16 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 is in error. The dispositive issue
presented by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding
Andersson discloses a probability that a wireless terminal will connect with
the cells in a paging list where the probability is expressed as a number?
The Examiner finds that Andersson at page 5, lines 12–13 describes a
mobile station is first paged in the cells where it is most likely to found,
which teaches that the cells in the paging list are prioritized based on the
probability that the wireless terminal will connect with the cells and the
probability is a number. (Ans. 8, 11.) As discussed above with respect to
claim 13, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Andersson
teaches the likelihood—i.e., probability—that a mobile station is likely to be
found in a cell (by responding to a paging message) and that the cells in the
paging list are prioritized based on the probability. (See Br. 12.) Hence,
Appellant’s argument with respect to claims 10 and 20 essentially amounts
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

7
to the argument that Andersson does not teach a probability that is expressed
as a number. Unlike claim 13, claims 10 and 20 expressly recite that “the
probability is a number.” Andersson is directed to an improved method of
paging in a digital cellular communication system (see, e.g., Andersson 5:3–
30), and, hence, the probabilities used in Andersson’s digital communication
system must necessarily be represented in a numerical form to be prioritized.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10
and 20, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Claim 15
Appellant argues on pages 16 to 17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Andersson
discloses that location data identifies a first base transceiver station to which
a wireless terminal most recently connected, and that the group of base
transceiver stations is identified and prioritized based on spatial data related
to the first base transceiver station?
In rejecting claim 15, the Examiner finds that initially paging a mobile
station in the cell where the mobile station is currently registered described
in page 6, lines 14–18 of Andersson teaches a base transceiver station to
which a wireless terminal most recently connected and further discloses
inherently prioritizing where (i.e., which cell among a group of base
transceiver stations) the mobile station is likely to be found. (See Ans. 7.)
Appellant contends that Andersson does not teach the disputed limitation
because the cited passages merely teach paging a mobile station using a
Paging Hotlist. (See Br. 17.)
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

8
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive as they do not dispute or
otherwise address the Examiner’s findings. In particular, Appellant does not
explain why Andersson’s disclosure of a cell where the mobile station is
currently registered does not teach a base transceiver station to which a
wireless terminal most recently connected. Nor does Appellant dispute the
Examiner’s finding of inherent disclosure of prioritizing the group of base
transceiver stations.2 Hence, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 15 and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
15.

Claim 19
Appellant argues on pages 17 to 18 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Andersson
discloses a wireless local loop?
In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner finds that Andersson at page 5,
lines 26–28 teaches a wireless local loop. (Ans. 8, 12.) However, the
Examiner does not explain how optionally paging a mobile station within a
Location area described in the cited passages teaches a wireless local loop.
In the absence of an explanation, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
has not shown Andersson teaches a wireless local loop. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19.

2 We note that, with respect to claim 13, from which claim 15 depends,
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that page 6, lines 1–20 of
Andersson inherently discloses prioritizing where the mobile station is likely
to be found. (See Br. 12.)
Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

9
Claim 22
Appellant argues on pages 18 to 19 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding Andersson
discloses “the probability data comprises a plurality of adjacent base
transceiver stations that are adjacent to each base transceiver station in the
location data and a number that indicates the probability of each adjacent
base transceiver station being able to successfully page the wireless
terminal,” as recited by claim 22?
In rejecting claim 22, the Examiner finds that, similar to claim 1, the
adjacent cells described in Figure 1 of Andersson teaches adjacent base
transceiver stations that are adjacent to a base transceiver station in the
location data. (See Ans. 8, 12.) Similar to our discussion above with respect
to claims 1 and 17, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the cited
passages disclose adjacent base transceiver stations. Also, as discussed
above with respect to claims 10 and 20, we agree with the Examiner that
Andersson at page 5, lines 12–13 teaches a probability that a wireless
terminal will connect with the cells in a paging list and that Andersson
inherently discloses a probability that is expressed as a number. Similarly,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Andersson at page 5, lines 29–30
inherently discloses a number that indicates the probability of each adjacent
base transceiver station being able to successfully page the wireless terminal.
(See id.) Hence, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 22 and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.

Appeal 2011-003306
Application 11/462,635

10
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–22 is
affirmed-in-part.
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-IN-PART

kme