15664748 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2020)

Sony Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 10, 2020

15664748 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2020)

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. 15/664,748 07/31/2017 Brian Alexander MARTIN 10577US01CON 5491 154930 7590 11/10/2020 XSENSUS LLP 200 Daingerfield Road Suite 201 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/10/2020 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): Faith.Baggett@xsensus.com Sandy.Miles@Xsensus.com anaquadocketing@Xsensus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte BRIAN ALEXANDER MARTIN ________________ Appeal 2020-001644 Application 15/664,748 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22. Appeal Br. 2. An oral hearing was held October 29, 2020. A transcript of the proceeding is being prepared and will be entered into the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-001644 Application 15/664,748 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to a “terminal device . . . that receives parameter data from a base station in a cellular wireless telecommunication network” and that also “stores an identifier that uniquely identifies the terminal device.” Abstract. The terminal device performs “cell reselection using at least one cell reselection parameter derived from the received parameter data and the stored unique identifier.” Id. Such re- selection includes “evaluating which frequency or cell to (re)select.” Spec. 7:39–8:1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM (Disputed Limitations Emphasized and Bracketing Added) 1. A terminal device comprising: receiver circuitry configured to receive at least one system information block including parameter data from a base station in a cellular wireless telecommunication network, the parameter data including at least absolute priorities for frequencies; a storage device configured to store an identifier that uniquely identifies the terminal device; and [1] control circuitry configured to control the terminal device, when operating in an idle mode, to perform cell reselection using the absolute priorities for frequencies included in the received parameter data and the stored unique identifier. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Griot et al. US 2016/0286524 A1 Sept. 29, 2016 Khay-Ibbat et al. US 2017/0064593 A1 Mar. 2, 2017 Appeal 2020-001644 Application 15/664,748 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–7, 10–18, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Griot. Final Act. 2–5. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Griot and Khay-Ibbat. Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that Griot’s idle mode cell selection procedure, which is based on determining a candidate cell that meets minimum selection criteria, discloses recitation [1], “control circuitry configured to control the terminal device, when operating in an idle mode, to perform cell reselection using the absolute priorities for frequencies included in the received parameter data and the stored unique identifier.” Final Act. 3 (citing Griot ¶¶ 51, 56, 63, 64); Ans. 3–20. Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that a cell may operate using one or more different frequencies at the same or different times, and therefore, a ranking of a cell . . . does not teach the claimed reselection based on absolute priorities for frequencies.” Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2 (“the cited portions of Griot are silent regarding any frequency priorities that are received by a terminal device from a base station”). The Examiner finds that “Griot . . . disclose[s] that cells operate in different frequency bands.” Ans. 14 (citing Griot ¶ 185). But this finding does not persuasively address the issue raised by Appellant that prioritizing cells, as disclosed by Griot, is not the same as prioritizing frequencies, as required by recitation [1]. Appeal Br. 8–9. The selection criteria of Griot— Appeal 2020-001644 Application 15/664,748 4 including “cell priority”—do not include frequency priority. Griot ¶ 63. Thus, in the portions cited by the Examiner, Griot prioritizes cells for selection or reselection, and the frequency selection or assignment is a consequence of such selection or reselection. This contrasts with the claimed invention, which prioritizes frequency (using “absolute priorities for frequencies . . . and [a] stored unique identifier”) to dictate which cell to select. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show that Griot discloses recitation [1]. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claim 1, or claims 2–7, 10–18, 21, and 22, which contain similar recitations. The Examiner also fails to show that Khay-Ibbat cures the noted deficiency of Griot. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obvious rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 8, 9, 19, and 20. CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 10–18, 21, 22 102(a)(2) Griot 1–7, 10–18, 21, 22 8, 9, 19, 20 103 Griot, Khay-Ibbat 8, 9, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–22 REVERSED