Ex Parte Zou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613251430 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 13/251,430 10/03/2011 Jialin Zou 29250-002572/US 3766 30594 7590 12/27/2016 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER IQBAL, KHAWAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com pshaddin@hdp.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIALIN ZOU, KATHIRAVETPILLAI SIVANESAN, and SUBRAMANIAN VASUDEVAN Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/2 51,43 c1 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—5, 7—9, 13, 14, and 16—20. Appellants have previously canceled claims 6 and 12. The Examiner indicates that dependent claims 10, 11, and 15 are objected to, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to a method of estimating mobility of user equipment and a wireless device. Title. Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 14, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitation): 1. A method of estimating mobility of a user equipment, comprising: obtaining location information of a plurality of base stations, the plurality of base stations having previously participated in one or more handovers of the user equipment; and determining which ones of the one or more handovers constitute a pingpong handover; and estimating a mobility of the user equipment based on the obtained location information, the determined ones of the one or more handovers that constitute the pingpong handover being ignored when the estimating estimates the mobility of the user equipment. 14. A method of estimating mobility of a user equipment, comprising: determining whether the user equipment is communicating with one of a macro cell base station and a small cell base station; 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed June 16, 2015); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Oct. 15, 2015); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 13, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Oct. 3, 2011). We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief. 2 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 performing a first mobility estimation process if the user equipment is communicating with a macro cell base station, the first mobility estimation process being based on locations of macro cell base stations that participated in previous macro cell handovers of the user equipment; and performing a second mobility estimation process if the user equipment is communicating with a small cell base station, the second mobility estimation process being based on location information of small cell base that participated in previous small cell handovers of the user equipment. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Mehta US 2011/0034178 Al Feb. 10, 2011 Spinelli et al. ("Spinelli") US 2012/0044908 Al Feb. 23, 2012 Welnick et al. ("Welnick") US 2013/0005341 Al Jan. 3, 2013 Chen WO 2011/029365 Al Sept. 9, 2009 Rejections on Appeal Rl. Claims 1, 2, 7—9, 13, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mehta and Chen. Final Act. 5. R2. Claims 3—5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Mehta, Chen, and Welnick. Final Act. 9. R3. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious the combination of Mehta and Spinelli. Final Act. 10. CFAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 9—18), we decide the appeal of Rejection Rl of claims 1, 2, 7—9, 13, and 16—20 on the basis of 3 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 representative claim 1. We decide the appeal of separately argued Rejection R3 of claim 14, infra. We decide the appeal of Rejection R2 of claims 3—5, not separately argued, infra. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 14 for emphasis as follows. 1. $ 103(a) Rejection R1 of Claim 1 Issue 1 Appellants argue (Br. 9—16) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mehta and Chen is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a "method of estimating mobility of a user equipment," wherein, inter alia, "the determined ones of the one or more handovers that constitute 4 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 the pingpong handover [are] ignored when the estimating estimates the mobility of the user equipment" (emphasis added), as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend: [Determining a pingpong handover state of a mobile device and as a result, reducing or avoiding the occurrence of pingpong handovers in the femtocell covered area, neither teaches nor suggests estimating the mobility of the UE where the pingpong handovers that have already occurred, are ignored in estimating a mobility of the UE. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellants specifically contend: The dispute between the Appellants and the Examiner is not with respect to the definition of the term mobility but whether Chen teaches or suggests ignoring pingpong handovers in estimating the mobility of the UE. Id. Our reviewing court guides, claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings of Mehta and Chen, the test for obviousness is not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 5 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 We agree with the Examiner's finding that Mehta’s mobile device, configured to compute an estimated location of the mobile device based on the location of previous and current base stations, teaches "estimating a mobility of the user equipment based on the obtained location information." Ans. 5 (citing Mehta, Tflf 44, 26, 39, Figs. 5—8). We agree with the Examiner's finding because Mehta's mobile device estimates its own location by constructing a connecting line between the locations of the previous base station and the current base station. Id. We also agree with the Examiner's finding that Chen's pingpong handover control, by refusing UE's pingpong handover control to camp on the femtocell, teaches or at least suggests "the pingpong handover being ignored." Ans. 7 (citing Chen Abstr.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because, while Appellants argue "the pingpong handover" is "ignored when the estimating estimates the mobility of the user equipment," the "estimating" claim limitation doesn't preclude the ping pong handover from being ignored at other times under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, as long as the ping pong handover is ignored also "when" estimating. That is, given the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claims, we agree with the Examiner that ignoring the ping pong handover (Chen) comprises ping pong handover when estimating as well as when not estimating. Because the preponderance of evidence supports the Examiner's findings, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the 6 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 contested "estimating" limitation of claim 1 on the cited combination of references is overly broad or unreasonable.3 Appellants further contend, "one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Mehta with Chen in the manner proposed by the Examiner because combining Mehta with Chen, as proposed, renders Mehta unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." Br. 14—16. Appellants specifically argue: Mehta discloses estimating a mobility of the mobile device) but fails to disclose estimating the mobility of the mobile device, in which handovers characterized as pingpong handovers are ignored in estimating the mobility of the user equipment .... There is no disclosure anywhere in Mehta that would suggest using another method to estimate the location of the mobile device and/ or not taking into consideration a factor when determining the location of a mobile device. Br. 15. In response, we find Appellants are arguing the references separately. The Examiner finds Chen, not Mehta, teaches ignoring pingpong handovers. Final Act. 6. In response to Appellants' argument regarding the Examiner's motivation in combining the cited references, we note the Examiner presents a motivation to combine (Final Act. 6), and provides articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSRlnt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 3 Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 7 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 We find no error with the Examiner's conclusion it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Mehta by specifically adding the feature of pingpong handover being ignored when the estimating estimates the mobility in order to enhance system performance to allows reducing signaling interaction caused by the ping-pong handover, and power consumption of the user equipment. Final Act. 6. Therefore, on this record, Appellants have not shown that determining which ones of the handovers are "pingpong handovers" and ignoring those pingpong handovers when "estimating the mobility of the user equipment" (claim 1) would have been more than a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S, at 416. Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor have Appellants provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys.„ Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We note Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions of obviousness. Accordingly, on this record, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent 8 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 claim 1 and grouped claims 2, 7—9, 13, and 16—20, which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 2. $ 103(a) Rejection R3 of Claim 14 Issue 2 Appellants argue (Br. 17—18) the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Mehta and Spinelli is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests "[a] method of estimating mobility of a user," that includes, inter alia, the limitations of: determining whether the user equipment is communicating with one of a macro cell base station and a small cell base station; performing a first mobility estimation process if the user equipment is communicating with a macro cell base station . . . and performing a second mobility estimation process if the user equipment is communicating with a small cell base station, as recited in claim 14? Analysis Appellants contend: Claim 14 requires use of one of two distinct processes depending on whether the UE is communicating with a small cell base station or a macro cell base station, and Appellants assert that it is improper to interpret two or more distinct elements of a claim as reading on a single disclosure in the reference (i.e., paragraph (0043] of Mehta). 9 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 Br. 17—18 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds in the Answer that Appellant is arguing limitations not in the claim: "[Applicants didn't claim whether the two mobility estimation processes are similar or distinct. However, Mehta teaches two processes." Ans. 12. The Examiner further finds Mehta's mobile device computing an estimated location based on a relationship between base stations, including estimating locations for both small and large (macro) base stations, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 12—14 (citing Mehta || 43^14, 47-48, 54, Fig. 5). We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings, and note Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions of obviousness in the Answer. Accordingly, on this record, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection R3 of independent claim 14. In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to obviousness rejection R2 of claims 3—5 under § 103 (see Br. 17—18), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Arguments not made are waived. 10 Appeal 2016-004889 Application 13/251,430 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections R1 through R3 of claims 1—5, 7—9, 13, 14, and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—9, 13, 14, and 16—20. 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 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation