SPIDERCLOUD WIRELESS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

15059235 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 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.
15/059,235 03/02/2016 Behrooz Parsay HI17-837 1086
21495 7590 06/04/2020
CORNING INCORPORATED
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT, SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BEHROOZ PARSAY, SHASHIKANT TIWARI,
HITHESH NAMA, YASHODHAN DANDEKAR,
BRIAN PATRICK DUNN, and JASPREET SINGH
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–30, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to a gateway coordinating multiple small cell
radio access networks. Spec. Title.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 30 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1. A method of coordinating a plurality of radio access networks
(RANs), comprising:
aggregating, with a gateway, communications interfaces
between a plurality of RANs and a packet core network through
the gateway, a plurality of radio nodes (RNs) in each of the
plurality of RANs communicatively coupled to the gateway and
to user equipment (UE) devices associated with the plurality of
RNs in each of the plurality of RANs;
controlling and coordinating, with the gateway, mobility
of the UE devices within and among the plurality of RANs; and
acting, with the gateway, as a virtual enhanced NodeB
(eNB) to the packet core network to hide the aggregated
communications interfaces from the packet core network.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies the real party in interest as
“SpiderCloud Wireless, Inc. . . . which is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Corning Incorporated.” Appeal Br. 2. A request to correct or update the
name of the applicant submitted on February 3, 2020, subsequently updated
the applicant to Corning Optical Communications LLC.
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

3
30. A gateway through which a plurality of radio access networks
(RANs) communicate with a packet core network, comprising:
a plurality of access controller modules to which at least
one RAN is assigned, each of the plurality of access controller
modules being configured to control the at least one RAN
assigned thereto;
a core network aggregator module configured as a single
interface for all communication between the plurality of access
controller modules and the packet core network;
a mobility anchor module at which all data plane traffic
between user equipment (UEs) attached to one of the plurality of
RANs and the packet core network terminate; and
a cluster manager module for assigning RNs to the
plurality of access controller modules and transferring RN
assignments from one access controller module to a different
access controller module under specified circumstances.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–11, 16–21, 24–28, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Srinivasan2 (US 2013/0294403 A1; published Nov. 7,
2013) in view of Chen (US 2016/0112945 A1; Apr. 21, 2016). Final Act. 9.
Claims 1–29 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of Srinivasan (US 8,982,841
B2; Mar. 17, 2015). Final Act. 6.
The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and
(b). See Ans. 4; Advisory Act. (May 30, 2018).

2 For the obviousness rejection, the Examiner relies on the patent publication
of Srinivasan, but for the double patenting rejection, the Examiner relies on
the issued patent. We therefore cite to the patent publication of Srinivasan
in the discussion of the obviousness rejection.
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

4
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Srinivasan
and Chen teaches or suggests “aggregating . . . communications interfaces
between a plurality of RANs and a packet core network” with “a plurality of
radio nodes (RNs) in each of the plurality of RANs,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Srinivasan
and Chen teaches or suggests “a cluster manager module for assigning RNs
to the plurality of access controller modules and transferring RN
assignments from one access controller module to a different access
controller module under specified circumstances,” as recited in claim 30?
ANALYSIS
Obviousness
Claims 1–11, 16–21, and 24–28
The preamble of claim 1 recites a “method of coordinating a plurality
of radio access networks (RANs).” The body of claim 1 then recites
“aggregating . . . communications interfaces between a plurality of RANs
and a packet core network.” Claim 1 further recites “a plurality of radio
nodes (RNs) in each of the plurality of RANs.”
Appellant argues that the prior art discloses aggregating multiple radio
access nodes (RNs), not multiple radio access networks (RANs). Appeal Br.
11–12.
We agree with Appellant. Claim 1 of the commonly-owned
Srinivasan is very similar to claim 1 of the present application except
Srinivasan recites “aggregating communications interfaces between a
plurality of radio nodes and a packet core network.” Srinivasan does
disclose that within a footprint of a macrocell, “there may be multiple ERAN
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

5
deployments in the area, each with a large number of RNs.” Srinivasan
¶ 65. However, the Examiner fails to explain sufficiently how Srinivasan
teaches or suggests aggregating those multiple ERAN deployments, rather
than, for example, merely aggregating multiple nodes within a single radio
access network. See Ans. 4–5. The Examiner’s reliance on Chen suffers
from the same deficiency because Chen discloses “aggregating signalings
from different radio access network nodes” yet the Examiner never
sufficiently explains why it would have been obvious to aggregate nodes
from multiple radio access networks. See Chen ¶¶ 14 (emphasis added),
116; Ans. 6–7.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection under § 103 of
claim 1, and its dependent claims 2–11, 16–21, and 24–28.
Claim 30
Independent claim 30 recites “at least one RAN” rather than the
plurality of RANs required in claim 1. Instead, Appellant argues a different
limitation reciting “a cluster manager module for assigning RNs to the
plurality of access controller modules and transferring RN assignments from
one access controller module to a different access controller module under
specified circumstances.”
The Final Office Action first cites paragraph 35 of Srinivasan for
teaching or suggesting this entire limitation. Paragraph 35 of Srinivasan is
reproduced below:
On the management plane, it is assumed that the SNs are
provisioned through a TR-69/TR-196 interface from an access
control system (ACS) entity in an operator core network. This is
analogous to the provisioning architecture for UMTS ERAN and
consumer femtocells, and is consistent with deployment
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

6
roadmaps laid out by operators. In one embodiment, the
attributes of the virtual eNB (SN) are directly provisioned by the
ACS, while the attributes of the pool of radio nodes sitting behind
it are managed by the SN. For other management plane
integration such as events, alarms and performance data, custom
integration may be carried out with vendors that install and
manage operations support systems (OSSs) in operator networks.
Alternatively, and in accordance with another embodiment, SNs,
which take on the role of local enterprise gateways, may
themselves be aggregated through an LTE femto gateway as also
shown in FIG. 3.
Srinivasan ¶ 35.
The Final Office Action goes on to state that “Srinivasan does not
explicitly teach a cluster manager module.” Final Act. 17. Instead, the
Examiner finds that “Chen teaches a gateway man[a]ger to manage and
coordinate one or more access network nodes.” Final Act. 17 (citing Chen
¶ 14) (emphasis omitted).
Paragraph 14 of Chen discloses:
the control plane gateway works as an aggregation and
distribution node of control plane signaling, aggregating
signalings from different radio access network nodes and
sending them to the core network, or distributing signalings from
the core network to different radio access network nodes; and
managing and coordinating one or more radio access network
nodes.
Chen ¶ 14.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown where
the entirety of this limitation is taught or suggested by Chen:
[W]hile paragraph 0014 of Chen does describe a “control plane
gateway” that “works as an aggregation and distribution node of
control plane signaling . . . and coordinating one or more radio
access network nodes,” there is no teaching that this “control
plane gateway” “assign[s] RNs to the plurality of access
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

7
controller modules and transfer[s] RN assignments from one
access controller module to a different access controller module
under specified circumstances” as recited in claim 30. Mere
“coordinating” is not the same as the “assigning” recited in claim
30.
Appeal Br. 13.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
on Chen only for teaching a “cluster manager module,” but relies on
Srinivasan for disclosing the rest of the limitation, including the disputed
“assigning.” Final Act. 17. Thus, Appellant’s argument about Chen alone
does not address the entirety of the Examiner’s rejection. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under § 103 of
claim 30.
Double Patenting
Appellant does not substantively argue the double patenting rejection.
Instead, “Appellant has deferred argument” and “Appellant commits . . . to
the preparation and filing of a terminal disclaimer in the event that the
claims are found otherwise allowable.” Appeal Br. 8. Given Appellant’s
waiver of argument and commitment to filing a terminal disclaimer, we
summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–29 for double
patenting.
Appeal 2019-002185
Application 15/059,235

8
DECISION SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 16–21,
24–28, 30
103 Srinivasan, Chen 30 1–11, 16–21,
24–28
1–29 Obviousness-type
double patenting
1–29
Overall 1–30
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED