SONY CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 1, 2020

2019005332 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 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.
15/109,765 07/05/2016 Brian Alexander MARTIN 10508US01 1558
154930 7590 12/01/2020
XSENSUS LLP
200 Daingerfield Road
Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
TORRES, MARCOS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2020 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 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–19 and 22. We have jurisdiction over the rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Embodiments of Appellant’s invention relate to “schemes for
communicating information regarding the mobility status of a terminal
device in a wireless telecommunications system.” Spec., page 1, ll. 5–6.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony
Corporation. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

2
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of operating a terminal device for
communicating with a base station in a wireless
telecommunications system, the method comprising:
determining a mobility status for the terminal device
using one mobility status method selected from among a
plurality of candidate mobility status methods available for use;
determining an associated reliability for the determined
mobility status from among a plurality of reliabilities
respectively pre-associated with the plurality of candidate
mobility status methods;
conveying an indication of the determined mobility status
and an indication of the determined reliability for the
determined mobility status to the base station; and
configuring the terminal device for operation within the
wireless telecommunications system by taking into account
both the determined mobility status and the determined
reliability for the determined mobility status.
Appeal Br. 13, Claims App.
Rejections
A. Claims 1–19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
B. Claims 1–4, 6–13, 15–19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuboi (US 2017/0318611 A1;
published November 2, 2017).
C. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tsuboi and Anepu (US 2013/0188503 A1; published July 25,
2013).
D. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tsuboi and Pereira (US 2010/0004005 A1; published January
7, 2010).
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1–19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The Examiner determines that the Specification does not have
sufficient written description support:
The parent claims recite the limitation “determining an
associated reliability for the determined mobility status from
among a plurality of reliabilities respectively pre-associated
with the plurality of candidate mobility status methods”. The
examiner was unable to find support for “reliabilities
respectively pre-associated” and the scope of pre-associated on
the specification. The rest of the claims they share the
deficiency by virtue of dependency.
Final Act. 3 (hereinafter the “pre-associated” limitation).
The Examiner further determines that:
[T]he associated reliability is a characteristic or property of the
method used, which is admitted in the paragraph, when the
specification recites “known to be associated with a given
degree of reliability”. So, which one is it? Can the mobility be
associated with reliability? Or, is the mobility already known to
be associated with reliability? The use of relative language does
not help to clarify the issue. And the use of a different relative
language in the claim, makes uncertain whether if it is directed
to same limitation. In the claim the limitation is a step wherein
the reliability is “respectively pre-associated”, while in the
specification acknowledge that the association is an already
known characteristic of reliability. The last section of the
recited paragraph shows configuring a device property as is
stationary for a device that is fixed and is associated reliability
is high because is intended to operate in a fixed location. Again,
the mentioned association is a property or characteristic of
being stationary and/or its definition since something that does
not move should be highly reliable to stay there. Thereby, the
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

4
scope of the claims differ from the scope shown in the
specification.
Ans. 4.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in
a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show
that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id. at 1562–63;
Accord Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en banc). “[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written
description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the
claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351. In particular, the written description requirement
does not demand any particular form of disclosure “or that the specification
recite the claimed invention in haec verba.” Id. at 1352.
Appellant has identified written description support for the pre-
associated limitation on pages 7 through 9 of the Appeal Brief, and on pages
2 and 3 of the Reply Brief. In particular, Appellant contends:
As outlined below, the specification describes an
exemplary configuration by which the reliability for the
determined mobility status is determined based on a reliability
pre-associated with the mobility status method used to
determine the mobility. An example of this is described at p. 9,
ll. 29-37 of the specification as follows:

For example, assume for the sake of one specific
example a terminal device is able to establish its mobility
status based on historical cell reselection events during
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

5
the time it was in idle mode in accordance with
conventional techniques (relatively low reliability) and is
also able to recognise it has low mobility (with high
reliability) when it is connected to a docking station. If
this terminal device is not in the docking station during
step S4, it will establish its mobility status (mobility state
estimate) based on counting cell reselections in
accordance with a conventional techniques, and having
relatively low reliability. If, on the other hand, in step S4
the terminal device is in the docking station, it will
establish its mobility status (i.e. low mobility/stationary)
based on this fact, and wherein this will be established
with a relatively high degree of reliability.

In the context of the example outlined above, the
terminal device determines an associated reliability for the
determined mobility status (e.g. low if cell reselection and high
if connected to a docking station) from among a plurality of
reliabilities (e.g. high or low) respectively pre-associated with
the plurality of candidate mobility status methods (e.g. cell
reselection or connected to a docking station). Thus, the
specification discloses that different degrees of reliability may
be pre-associated with the different ways of establishing the
mobility status.
Reply Br. 2, 3 (emphases omitted).
As noted above, the written description requirement does not demand
“that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec verba.” Ariad,
598 F.3d at 1352. For the same reasons as advanced by Appellant, we find
sufficient written description to demonstrate possession of the invention
claimed in Figure 3 and p. 8, ll. 14–23 and p. 9, l. 23–p. 10, l. 19 of the
Specification. See Appeal Br. 7–9.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19 and 22 under U.S.C. § 112(a) (written
description).
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

6
Rejections under § 102(a)(2) of Claims 1–4, 6–13, 15–19, and 22
Claim 1
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the issue of
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 turns on
whether Tsuboi discloses “determining an associated reliability for the
determined mobility status from among a plurality of reliabilities
respectively pre-associated with the plurality of candidate mobility status
methods,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 18, 19, and 22 (hereinafter “reliabilities limitation,” see
Appeal Br. 10, 11).
In particular, Appellant contends:
This cited portion [par. 99] of Tsuboi, however, fails to
disclose that the reliability for the determined mobility status is
determined from among a pluralities of reliabilities respectively
pre-associated with the plurality of candidate mobility status
methods, as required by claim 1. Instead, this cited portion of
Tsuboi describes that in a case where a mobility state
estimation unit 402 is capable of estimating a mobility state
with plural degrees of estimation accuracy according to the time
or measured quantity for estimating the mobility state,
estimation accuracy information may be reported in addition to
a mobility estimation result.
Appeal Br. 10, 11 (emphases omitted).
The Examiner finds that the reliabilities limitation is disclosed in
Tsuboi as explained on pages 5 and 6 of the Answer. In particular, the
Examiner cites to paragraph 98 of Tsuboi and finds that:
Tsuboi’s reliabilities are related or associated with the plurality
of candidate mobility status methods as indicated in par. 0098
and 0099. For example, in par. 0098 the candidate mobility
status method can be such as cell type or small cell frequency
information or measured value (such as RSRP, RSRQ, GPS,
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

7
acceleration sensor, or Doppler frequency and as admitted, GPS
techniques, or any other known techniques for determining
position, known to be associated with a given degree of
reliability. Therefore, the determined associated reliability for
the determined mobility status from among a pluralities of
reliabilities are associated, pre-associated and/or related with
the plurality of candidate mobility status method.
Ans. 6.
We note that in the Reply Brief of record, Appellant did not
rebut the Examiner’s findings of paragraph 98 of Tsuboi. Therefore,
in the absence of persuasive rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade
us otherwise, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying
reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Consequently,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, 19, and 22. Appellant did not
provide separate arguments with respect to the patentability of
dependent claims 2–4, 6–13, and 15–17. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1–4, 6–13, 15–19, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsuboi.

Rejections of Claims 5 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant does not advance separate arguments regarding claims 5
and 14 which stand rejected under § 103. Arguments not made are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19, 22 112 (a) Written
Description
1–19, 22
Appeal 2019-005332
Application 15/109,765

8
FINALITY AND RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

1–4, 6–13, 15–
19, 22
102(a)(2) Tsuboi 1–4, 6–
13, 15–
19, 22

5 103 Tsuboi, Anepu 5
14 103 Tsuboi, Pereira 14
Overall
outcome
1–19, 22