Anshuman Nigam et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 19, 2019

14608936 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 14/608,936 01/29/2015 Anshuman NIGAM 1398-798 (YPF201412-29) 8764 66547 7590 12/19/2019 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2019 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): pto@farrelliplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANSHUMAN NIGAM, JUNGSOO JUNG, JUNGMIN MOON, SUNHEUI RYOO, and SUNGJIN LEE ____________ Appeal 2018-002676 Application 14/608,936 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 23–42. Claims 1–22 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2018-002676 Application 14/608,936 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to supporting a Handover (HO) by a master evolved Node B (eNB) in a wireless communication system supporting dual connectivity of a User Equipment (UE) for the master eNB and a slave eNB. (Abstract.) Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 23. A method by a master base station, comprising: transmitting, to a target secondary base station, a request for allocating resources to handover a user equipment (UE) from a source secondary base station to the target secondary base station; receiving, from the target secondary base station, an acknowledgment corresponding to the resource allocation request; and transmitting, to the source secondary base station, a request for releasing resources associated with the UE, the resource release request including a data forwarding address. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix). REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 23–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2016/0135103 A1, pub. May 12, 2016). (Final Act. 3–7.) ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following issue:2 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 4, 2017) (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 9, 2018) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action Appeal 2018-002676 Application 14/608,936 3 Whether the Examiner erred in finding Lee discloses the independent claim 23 limitation, “the resource release request including a data forwarding address.” (Appeal Br. 5–8.) ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Lee discloses the independent claim 23 requirement, “transmitting, to the source secondary base station, a request for releasing resources associated with the UE, the resource release request including a data forwarding address” — and in particular finding Lee discloses that such a request includes a data forwarding address. (Appeal Br. 5–8.) The Examiner relies, inter alia, on the disclosure in Lee of a “context release” command which is illustrated as command 10 in Figure 12 of Lee, and described as follows: 10. Upon receiving the handover notification message, the MeNB transmits a UE context release message to the source SeNB. The UE context release message may include an UEX2 ID of an old eNB (source SeNB) and an UE X2 ID of a new eNB (MeNB). (Final Act. 4; Lee Fig. 12, ¶ 150.) The Examiner finds that this command is transmitted to the source secondary base station, is associated with releasing UE resources to the target SeNB, and includes an ID of the target secondary base station. (Ans. 8.) The Examiner notes that the phrase “data forwarding address” is not defined in the Specification. (Ans. 9.) Indeed, that term is found nowhere in the Specification, including the original claims. The (mailed Jan. 12, 2017) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 28, 2017) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2018-002676 Application 14/608,936 4 Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable construction of that term encompasses the “UE X2 ID of a new eNB” referred to in the above-quoted paragraph of Lee. Id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Lee discloses several steps between the acknowledgement step (Step 3 of Figure 110), which the Examiner finds satisfies the second limitation of claim 23, and the “UE CONTEXT RELEASE” step 10, which the Examiner finds satisfies the third limitation of claim 23. (Reply Br. 2–3.) However, claim 23, which claims a method comprising the recited steps, does not preclude such intervening steps. Indeed, the illustrative embodiment of the claimed subject matter described in the Specification includes intervening steps. (Spec. Fig. 2.) Appellant also argues “[n]othing in relation to the ID's in the cited paragraph [Lee paragraph 150] has anything to do with a data forwarding address, contrary to the rejection.” (Reply Br. 4.) This is unpersuasive attorney argument. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977) (“Argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”). We credit the Examiner’s unequivocal finding that the “UE X2 ID of a new eNB” in the UE CONTEXT RELEASE of step 10 of Lee Figure 12 satisfies the claim 23 requirement of a data forwarding address. (Ans. 8– 9.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 23 as anticipated by Lee. We also sustain the anticipation rejections of claims 24–42. Appellant’s arguments directed to these rejections incorporate the above-discussed arguments regarding claim 23, and those rejections are not otherwise argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 9–10.) Appeal 2018-002676 Application 14/608,936 5 CONCLUSION In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) /Basis Affirmed Reversed 23–42 102 Lee 23–42