Hong Wang et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 26, 201913373658 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019) 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. 13/373,658 11/23/2011 Hong Wang SAMS06-11488 4987 135249 7590 09/26/2019 Docket Clerk - SEC P.O. Drawer 800889 Dallas, TX 75380 EXAMINER SHEN, QUN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2661 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2019 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com munckwilson@gmail.com patents@munckwilson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HONG WANG and HUARUI LIANG ____________ Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–15, 18–22, 25, 26, and 31–34. App. Br. 7. Claims 3, 10, 16, 23, 27–30, and 35–38 are canceled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We refer to the inventors, collectively, as Appellant. The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method for managing base stations. See Claims Appendix (independent claims). INVENTION Claims 1, 7, 14, and 20 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for managing a plurality of base stations, the method comprises: receiving type information of the plurality of base stations and information on uplink signal energy of at least one terminal measured by the plurality of base stations; identifying a base station among the plurality of base stations based on the type information of the plurality of base stations and the information on uplink signal energy of the at least one terminal, wherein the base station is in a closed state providing no access service to terminals; and transmitting a message for transitioning the base station from the closed state to an open state to provide the access service to the terminals, refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 6, 2017, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed August 16, 2017, “Reply Br.”), the Second or Subsequent Examiner’s Answer (mailed June 21, 2017, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed October 6, 2016, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed November 23, 2011, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 3 wherein respective type information of respective base station among the plurality of base stations is related to a size of coverage of the respective base station. Claims Appendix. References and Rejections3 Voltolina US 2011/0044284 A1 Filed May 28, 2010 Kuningas US 2011/0201339 A1 Priority Oct. 29, 2008 Breuer EP 2 056 628 A1 June 5, 2009 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20–22, 25, and 31–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voltolina and Breuer. Final Act. 4–9. 2. Claims 6, 13, 19, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Voltolina, Breuer, and Kuningas. Final Act. 9–10. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 11, 17, and 24 stand objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 10. 3 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first-to- invent provisions. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 4 ANALYSIS4 We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–15, 18–22, 25, 26, and 31–34 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 13–40. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20–22, 25, AND 31–34:5 OBVIOUSNESS OVER VOLTOLINA AND BREUER. Appellant argues all claims as a group over the limitations of claim 1, designated as “representative.” App. Br. 8. Therefore, we decide the appeal on the basis of representative claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Receiving type information. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “receiving type information of the plurality of base stations and information on uplink signal energy of at least one terminal measured by the plurality of base stations.” The Examiner finds claim 1 recites a method necessitated by the apparatus of claim 14. Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Voltolina discloses 4 Appellant concludes: “[a]ll pending claims recite patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are improper.” App. Br. 17. This argument is moot because no such ground of rejection has been entered in the Final Action. 5 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 15, and 21. Ans. 3. See infra. Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 5 an apparatus for managing a plurality of base stations including a communication unit configured to receive type information of the plurality of base stations. Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that Voltolina uses traffic load statistics for the use of switching on a base station, but fails to mention an exchange of the type information. App. Br. 10. Appellant argues that Voltolina discloses various cell types, but does not disclose “receiving type information of the plurality of base stations and information on uplink signal energy of at least one terminal measured by the plurality of base stations,” as claimed. Id. The Examiner finds both the instant application and the Voltolina- Breuer combination relate to network optimization with respect to network load or traffic. Ans. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds the cited art teaches the network will shut down or switch on certain base stations or cells depending upon traffic conditions. Id. The Examiner finds Voltolina teaches a macro cell as the basic cell type and teaches micro or pico cells as capacity-enhancing cells wherein the macro cell pre-possesses the type information of micro or pico cell. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds Voltolina inherently teaches receiving cell-type information for the cells to be regulated. Id. The Examiner finds Voltolina is not able to properly use various cell types without knowing what type of cells they are. Specifically, the macro cell needs to identify the neighboring micro cells before determining to selectively switch one on or off. Ans. 5. Appellant reiterates that Voltolina fails to teach receiving the claimed uplink signal energy of at least one terminal. Reply Br. 2. Rather, Appellant Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 6 argues Voltolina teaches the cells which provide the basic coverage collect traffic statistics which enables the affected cell to begin off-loading traffic by causing a micro/pico cell to switch on. Reply Br. 3. Voltolina discloses that a base station manages its associated capacity- enhancing cells. Figure 7 of Voltolina is reproduced below. Figure 7 of Voltolina is a schematic block diagram illustrating an example of a base station serving a basic cell. Voltolina discloses base station 100 includes a radio coverage unit 110, a neighbor cell relation unit 120, a cell configuration information unit 130, and a wake-up call unit 140. Voltolina ¶ 121. The radio coverage unit 110 is configured to serve a basic cell providing basic radio coverage and is Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 7 connected to the antenna(s). Id. The neighbor cell relation unit 120 is configured to manage neighbor cell relation(s) including a neighbor cell relation between the basic cell and an associated capacity enhancing cell served by another base station. Id. Voltolina discloses “the cell configuration information unit 130 is configured . . . to keep corresponding cell configuration information related to the capacity enhancing cell. Id. The Examiner finds Voltolina inherently teaches “receiving the cell type information of certain cells that may be shut down or switched on.” Ans. 4. However, the claims further recite receiving “information on uplink signal energy of at least one terminal measured by the plurality of base stations” and “identifying a base station among the plurality of base stations based on the type information of the plurality of base stations and the information on uplink signal energy of the at least one terminal.” We are not persuaded Voltolina teaches the claimed information on uplink signal energy of at least one terminal. In view of the foregoing, we find the prior art fails to teach at least one claimed limitation and thus decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22, 25, and 31–34. CLAIMS 2, 4, 8, 15, AND 21: OBVIOUSNESS OVER VOLTOLINA AND BREUER. The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 2, 4, 8, 15, and 21. Ans. 3. Appeal 2017-010658 Application 13/373,658 8 CLAIMS 6, 13, 19, AND 26: OBVIOUSNESS OVER VOLTOLINA, BREUER, AND KUNINGAS. Appellant contends that Kuningas fails to cure the deficiencies of the Voltolina-Breuer combination. App. Br. 16. The Answer does not separately apply Kuningas. Ans. 6. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13, 19, and 26. DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 5–7, 9, 12–14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, and 31–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are REVERSED. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation