Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 18, 2019

14766598 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/766,598 08/07/2015 Wei Zhao
24112 7590 01/22/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-9261 I P39197-US1 6772
EXAMINER
SONG, REBECCA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2019 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
Exparte WEI ZHAO and YING SUN
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget L M
Ericsson. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from a Final rejection of
claims 63-85. Appellants have canceled claims 1---62. App. Br. 8. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Illustrative Claim
Illustrative claim 63 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
63. A method of controlling access to a cell of a mobile network, the
method comprising:
[A.] determining a transmission delay of a backhaul
connection of a radio station serving the cell, the radio
station being connected via the backhaul connection to a
cell controller of the cell;
[B.] depending on the transmission delay, determining at least
one time window defining a maximum allowed time
between two messages of a random access procedure;
and
[C.] indicating, via the radio station, the at least one time
window to one or more user equipments in the cell.
Kim et al.
Weng et al.
References2
US 2013/0201960 Al
WO 2013/020209 Al
Aug. 8, 2013
Feb. 14,2013
2 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
2
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
Rejections3
A.
The Examiner rejected claims 63, 64, 66-73, 75-78, 80, 81, 83, and
85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Kim and Weng. Final Act. 5-16.
Appellants argue separate patentability for claim 63. Appellants do
not argue separate patentability for claims 64, 66-73, 75-78, 80, 81, 83, and
85. We select claim 63 as the representative claim for this rejection. Except
for our ultimate decision, we do not address claims 64, 66-73, 75-78, 80,
81, 83, and 85 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 65, 74, 79, 82, and 84 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Weng in various combinations
with additional references. Final Act. 16-18.
Appellants do not present arguments for claims 65, 74, 79, 82, and 84.
Thus, the rejections of these claims tum on our decision as to claim 63.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the§ 103(a) rejections
of claims 65, 74, 79, 82, and 84 further herein.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
3 All citations herein to the "Final Action" are to a Final Action mailed on
August 7, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants. Except as noted below, 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 Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
points.
The Examiner present the following response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief arguments:
[A]lthough FIG. 1 [of Weng] does not explicitly show the direct
backhaul connection between the macro-cell and pico-cell, the
communication such as the PRACH detection report is being
communicated between the pico cell and macro cell using the
backhaul implementation (par [0097] [O 102]). Although
Appellant argues that the link is not used for accessing the pico-
cell, but rather for accessing the macro-cell, the measured link
for delay in PRACH detection report being communicated from
the pico-cell to the macro-cell can be read as the backhaul
connection of the pico-cell eNB regardless of whether the link is
for accessing the macro-cell. Further, as shown in FIG. 1, an
indirect backhaul is established between the pico-cell and the
macro-cell through the core network. Because the network's
backhaul implementation includes the backhaul connection
between the pico-cell and the core network, Weng teaches
determining the transmission delay of a backhaul connection of
a pico-cell eNB serving a pico-cell.
Appellant further argues that "the Office action takes
concurrent position that a) the backhaul is between the pico-cell
eNB and the macro-cell eNB ... AND that (b) the backhaul is
between the pico-cell eNB and a core network entity."
Appellants' Brief at p6.
4
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
As noted above, the backhaul connection between the
pico-cell eNB and the core network is the part of the backhaul
implementation (par [0097]). . .. [T]he indirect backhaul
connection that includes the backhaul connection from the pico-
cell eNB to the core network and to the macro-cell eNB is used
to convey information from the pico-cell eNB to macro-cell eNB.
Ans. 18-19.
In response, Appellants raise the following argument:
[T]he Examiner's Answer cites the generic heterogeneous
network shown in Fig. 1 [of Weng], which includes a first
backhaul link 114 connecting the macro cell 110 to the core
network 150 and a completely different second backhaul link 124
connecting the pico-cell 120 with the core network 150.
Additionally, cited Paragraph [0097] considers a scenario
"where a network's backhaul implementation cannot guarantee
that the macro cell can receive the PRACH detection report
from a pico cell within a specified time period." In other
words, Paragraph [0097] of Weng does not speak to the claimed
"determining !!. transmission delay of a backhaul connection,"
whatsoever. Instead, if such a transmission delay is indeed
determined in Weng, the delay associated with TWO backhauls:
first backhaul link 114 AND second backhaul link 124 because
the PRACH detection report would be required to travel up from
the pico-cell 120 via backhaul 124 to the core network 150 and
then back down from the core network 150 the macro cell 110.
Accordingly, contrary to the position taken in the Examiner's
Answer, Weng does not disclose or suggest determining a
transmission delay of a single backhaul connection, as claimed,
and instead mandates that a transmission delay of two separate
backhaul links 114 and 124 be considered.
Reply Br. 2.
We agree with the Examiner's reasoning that the claimed backhaul
connection is disclosed by Weng's two-link backhaul connection. Further,
contrary to Appellants' argument, Appellants overlook that the disclosure in
support of claim 63 includes such two-link backhaul connections.
5
Appeal2018-005807
Application 14/766,598
For example, in the cell as illustrated in Fig. 1 such different
transmission delays of the backhaul connection may occur
between the macro station 200-1 and the pico stations 200-2,
200-3, 200-4, but also between the different pico stations 200-2,
200-3, 200-4, e.g., due to different configurations of the backhaul
connections B2, B3, B4.
Spec. 9: 19-23 ( emphasis added). In this sentence, all of the backhaul
connections between stations are shown as two-link backhaul connections in
Appellants' Figure 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 63-85 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 63-85 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 63-85 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