Ex Parte Ashraf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 2019

14303952 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/303,952 06/13/2014 48116 7590 02/27/2019 FAY SHARPE/NOKIA 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Imran Ashraf 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. LUTZ 201420US02 1062 EXAMINER NGUYEN, SIMON Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2647 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/27/2019 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): docketing@faysharpe.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IMRAN ASHRAF and HOLGER CLAUSSEN Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 1 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 10, 2018; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 2, 2018; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 3, 2018; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed April 12, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed June 13, 2014. Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "an improved technique for controlling base stations [in a cellular wireless telecommunications system]." Spec. 2:8-9; Abstract. Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending on appeal. Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics. 1. A base station operable, in concert with other base stations within a group, to support wireless communications with user equipment, said base station, comprising: a transmitter operable to generate a cell having a coverage area supporting wireless communications with user equipment; a receiver operable to receive load information indicative of a user equipment communications load experienced by base stations within said group; and a coverage area adjustment determiner operable to determine changes required to said coverage area to change a user equipment communications load experienced by at least one base station within said group; wherein said coverage area adjustment determiner is configured, when said user equipment communications load experienced by said base station is above [ 1] an average user equipment communications load for said group and exceeds [2] a predetermined maximum user equipment communications load supportable by said base station, to decrease said coverage area to decrease said user equipment communications load experienced by said base station. App. Br. 13 (Claims App.) (bracketing added). 2 Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 Kezys Casey Evidence Considered US 2008/0181184 Al July 31, 2008 US 2009/0163223 Al June 25, 2009 Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-3 and 5-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kezys and Casey. Final Act. 4--7. ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds Kezys teaches most aspects of Appellants' "base station" that controls a load capacity of a group of base stations in a coverage area, including: "adjusting the coverage area of the base station [BS] by increasing or decreasing the transmit power of the BS, respectively, to balance the load according to the load capacity for the group of the BSs [ when the load of the BS exceeds a threshold]." Ans. 4 (citing Kezys ,r,r 30, 36, 42--48, 50-52, 56-68, Figs. 3---6). The Examiner also finds Kezys teaches "the adjustment of the coverage area [is] based upon a current load or an average load [average capacity used due to traffic demand]." Final Act. 5 (citing Kezys ,r,r 56, 62). The Examiner then relies on Casey for explicitly teaching "load balancing" "based on an average load for the group of the base stations" to support the conclusion of obviousness. Ans. 4--5 (citing Casey ,r 4 ("load balancing is usually triggered after a specific pre-set threshold has been passed in resource utilization" and "load balancing triggering threshold per the radio 3 Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 cell can be set e.g. to an average base station resource utilization of the whole radio system") and ,r 59 ("load condition comprises information on average load capacity of the cell" and "load condition parameter" includes "the average load capacity, e.g., average radio resource utilization, per the cell")). Appellants do not challenge the Examiner's reason to combine the references. Instead, Appellants argue "there is no discussion in the cited paragraph or elsewhere in Kezys of using an average load for a group of base stations as a threshold trigger for performing load balancing." App. Br. 5 ( emphasis added). According to Appellants, Kezys teaches that "the average capacity mentioned in the cited passages is an average of each single access point (AP), and not an average of multiple APs' capacities (i.e, an average of all APs in a group)" and, certainly, does not teach: Id. "an average capacity across a group of APs, but rather each individual AP uses its own average capacity (i.e., the average capacity for that single AP) to determine whether an overload condition is present or imminent." In other words, Appellants argue Kezys does not teach "an average UE communications load threshold.for said group of base stations," as well as "a predetermined maximum UE communications load supported by the base station" recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3---6. Appellants also argue Casey does not remedy the deficiencies of Kezys because "Casey only discusses individual base station average capacity values" but "these base stations' average load capacities are not averaged together to produce an average for a group of base stations" as recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 6-7. 4 Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 Appellants' arguments are not persuasive and are predicated on improper attacks of Kezys and Casey individually, when the Examiner's rejection is based on a combination of Kezys and Casey. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (holding that one cannot show non- obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in anyone or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. Id. at 425. As recognized by the Examiner, Kezys already teaches increasing transmit power level to adjust (i.e., increase) the coverage area within a cell when "overloaded," that is, the load experienced by the AP (BS) exceeds a threshold (i.e., Appellants' claimed "predetermined maximum user equipment communications load supported by said BS"). Final Act. 5 ( citing Kezys ,r,r 42, 46-4 7, Fig. 5). Casey is only cited for teaching that "load balancing triggering threshold per the radio cell can be set e.g. to an average base station resource utilization of the whole radio system"-an average load capacity, i.e., average radio resource utilization per cell or Appellants' claimed "average UE communications load threshold/or said group of base stations" as recited in claims 1 and 15. Ans. 4 ( citing Casey ,r,r 4, 59). Collectively, the combination of Kezys and Casey teaches all the limitations of Appellants' claims 1 and 15. For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, and dependent claims 3 and 5-14, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 12. 5 Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites "wherein said coverage area adjustment determiner is operable to determine changes required said coverage area within a predetermined range bounded by an upper and lower threshold." Appellants argue "there is no discussion in the text describing Figures 3 and 5 of Kezys of any threshold values, or of a predetermined range of coverage areas" and Casey does not make up for the deficiencies of Kezys. App. Br. 11. We disagree. Contrary to Appellants' argument, Kezys teaches "the coverage areas having a predetermined range bounded by an upper threshold ... and lower threshold" in the context of a larger or smaller coverage area occupied by a different number of mobile devices. Final Act. 6 ( citing Kezys' s Figs. 3 and 5). Similar to Kezys, Casey also teaches setting multiple thresholds in relation to load balancing. Id. ( citing Casey ,r,r 81, 83-84, 86, 88, 91, 98). For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 6 Appeal2018-007080 Application 14/303,952 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7