COMPTEL OYJ

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2021

2020003642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2021)

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.
15/187,180 06/20/2016 Juhana ENQVIST 315269-US-PCT 8099
47394 7590 08/20/2021
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./NOKIA
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2021 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUHANA ENQVIST
Appeal 2020-003642
Application 15/187,180
Technology Center 2400

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KHAN, 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. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comptel OYJ.
Appeal Br. 3.

Appeal 2020-003642
Application 15/187,180
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below with annotations identifying disputed
limitations, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of content delivery of services in a mobile
telecommunication network on the basis of predictions of user
and network needs, the method comprising:
collecting and receiving information of use of services in
the network;
analyzing network behavior based on the information
received, the analyzing including:
continuously monitoring traffic load in the network
in real-time, and
estimating an estimated traffic load including traffic
load locations in the network and network capacity needs
for delivering the services from at least said continuously
monitoring traffic load;
based on the analysis:
deciding an optimal network configuration to be
used for supporting the estimated traffic load locations in
the network,
selecting caches, including cache distribution, in the
network to support the estimated traffic load locations in
the network, and
defining several quality versions of a service in
accordance with the estimated traffic load; and
controlling the network behavior, the controlling
including:
sending content of services to the selected
caches in the network, wherein data content of the
service is preprocessed, the preprocessing including
creating the several quality versions of the service,
delivering, by each selected cache storing at
least one quality version of the service, related
stored service content to user devices responsive to
Appeal 2020-003642
Application 15/187,180
3
service requests by the user devices to a service
provider; and
based on the selecting and the deciding,
sending requests to network components to switch
over to the decided optimal network configuration.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jadallah US 2012/0311126 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Dey2 US 2014/0280679 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
REJECTIONS3
1. Claims 1–17 and 19–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Dey. Final Act. 5–21.
2. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Dey and Jadallah. Final Act. 21–22.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites “estimating an estimated traffic load including traffic
load locations in the network.” The Examiner finds Dey estimates traffic
load locations by determining the probability of a request for a video in a
particular cell. Final Act. 6 (citing Dey ¶¶ 47–49); Ans. 6 (citing Dey ¶¶ 48,
49, 199–200).

2 The Examiner finds that the disclosure of the Published Patent Application
of Dey is supported by its provisional application (No. 61/782,262) to which
Dey claims priority. Final Act. 5. Appellant does not dispute this finding.
Citations to Dey will, therefore, refer to the published patent application.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and
112(b). Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-003642
Application 15/187,180
4
Appellant argues4 that determining the probability that a user in a
specific cell requests a video, does not disclose estimating traffic load
locations. Appeal Br. 15. Indeed, Appellant argues that Dey does not need
to estimate the location because it already knows the location of the requests
to be within that specific cell. Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant
further argues that Dey’s equations, which the Examiner relies upon, merely
determine a number of concurrent video requests that can be met given
Quality of Experience requirements and available resources. Reply Br. 5
(citing Dey ¶¶ 199–200). The equations do not, according to Appellant,
estimate the location of traffic in the network. Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Dey discloses that it
monitors an Active User Set (“AUS”), which consists of users in a cell who
“have an active video session, or have watched and are likely to again watch
video when present in the cell.” Dey ¶ 47. Dey uses a “User Preference
Profile” to calculate the probability that a user in a cell requests videos of a
specific video category. Id. This probability, combined with the popularity
of videos in each category, allows Dey to derive the probability that a
specific video is requested given the AUS of the cell. Id. ¶ 49.
By estimating the probability that videos will be requested in a
particular cell, Dey estimates the traffic load for a particular location (i.e.,
for a particular cell). The claim, however, requires estimating multiple
traffic load locations. In other words, the claim requires identifying more
than one location where traffic load exists. The Examiner’s findings do not

4 Appellant presents additional arguments in their Appeal Brief. However,
because the identified argument is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach
the merits of these additional arguments.

Appeal 2020-003642
Application 15/187,180
5
show that Dey estimates the traffic load for multiple cells or that it identifies
multiple locations (multiple cells, or multiple locations within a cell) where
traffic load exists. Instead the Examiner’s findings show that Dey estimates
the traffic load for a single location. Although this distinction is subtle, it is
material in an anticipation rejection. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that in order to
anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 the prior art reference must not only
disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document,
but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.)
Conclusion
For the aforementioned reason, we are constrained to not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The other pending independent claims 17
and 22 also include substantially the same limitation and were rejected on
the same basis. Final Act. 15, 18. Thus, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 17 and 22. For the same reasons, we also do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the pending dependent claims, which
depend from one of the aforementioned independent claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17, 19–22 102 Dey 1–17, 19–
22
18 103 Dey, Jadallah 18
Overall
Outcome
1–22
REVERSED