Hong Wang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

13373658 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

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