Ex Parte BU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2014

11905242 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIAN BU, RUTH SCHAEFER GAYDE,
SCOTT C. MILLER,
KATHLEEN ELLEN MOCZULEWSKI,
ALEX IBRAHIM MOUKALLED, and
SAMPHEL NORDEN
____________

Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Alcatel-Lucent. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “correlating IP layer traffic
and wireless layer network elements in a network.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A correlation module for correlating IP layer traffic and
wireless layer network elements in a network, the correlation
module comprising:
a Radio Network Controller (RNC) analyzer configured
to collect wireless layer network element information from at
least one RNC and create an association between user location
information and the RNC based on the collected wireless layer
network element information;
an interface snoop unit configured to collect wireless
layer network element information and Internet Protocol (IP)
layer traffic information from at least one interface between a
serving General Packet Radio Services (GPRS) support node
and a gateway GPRS support node; and
a mapping unit configured to map the IP layer traffic and
the wireless layer network elements in the network based on the
collected IP layer traffic information and created association
between the user location information and the RNC.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olsson et al. (US 2010/0061386 A1; Mar. 11, 2010;
hereinafter “Olsson”) and Andersson (US 2007/0232276 A1; Oct. 4, 2007).
(Ans. 4–14.)
A rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 2–3) is
withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 4).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Aug. 8, 2011; “Reply Br.” filed Dec. 22, 2011) for the positions of
Appellants, and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Jan. 20, 2011)
and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Oct. 26, 2011) for the positions of the Examiner.
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

3
Only those arguments actually and timely made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not timely make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).

ISSUES
Based on Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13–23; Reply Br. 2–7) we
discuss the appeal by reference to claim 1. The issues presented by
Appellants’ contentions are as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Olsson and
Andersson teaches or suggests “a Radio Network Controller (RNC) analyzer
configured to . . . create an association between user location information
and the RNC based on the collected wireless layer network element
information” (the “disputed limitation”), as recited in claim 1?
Is the Examiner’s rationale for combining Olsson with Andersson
merely conclusory?

ANALYSIS
Disputed Limitation
As an initial matter, we construe the phrase “user location
information” recited in claim 1. Claim construction is an issue of law that
we review de novo. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319,
1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). During examination of a patent application, pending
claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). However, we must be careful not to read a particular
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

4
embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if the claim
language is broader than the embodiment. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The plain meaning of “user location information” is information that
relates to the locations of users. Appellants’ Specification explains that
“user location information” may be expressed in terms of Cell Global
Identification (CGI) or Service Area Identity (SAI) information. (See Spec.
¶¶ 30, 34.) We conclude user location information is any information that
relates to where a user is located or that may be used in locating a user, and
encompasses CGI and SAI information.
Appellants contend, “Olsson does not teach or fairly suggest creating
‘an association between user location information and the RNC based on
the collected wireless layer network element information,’ as required by
claim 1.” (App. Br. 16.) Appellants’ contention regarding Olsson is entirely
consistent with the Examiner’s findings. (See Ans. 6 (“Olsson does not
explicitly disclose . . . an association between user location information and
the RNC . . . .”).)
Appellants further contend that Andersson does not teach or suggest
the disputed limitation because “[a]ccording to Andersson, a priority-table
associates a location or sub-area with a UMTS-system. Anderson does not
create a user level association, but instead generally associates an entire
coverage area with the UMTS-system.” (App. Br. 17.) We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument because it is directed to a limitation not
recited in the claim, i.e., “user level association.” Additionally, Appellants’
argument is inconsistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user
location information.” As pointed out by Appellants, Andersson’s priority-
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

5
table teaches associating a location or sub-area with a UMTS system.
Andersson teaches that the subarea may be defined by its CGI or SAI. (See
Andersson ¶ 42.) Since Andersson’s CGI and SAI information is
information used to locate users, it falls within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “user location information.”
We note for emphasis, the recited “wireless layer network element
information” is not limited by claim 1 to the wireless layer network element
information collected by the recited “Radio Network Controller (RNC)
analyzer,” but also includes wireless layer network element information
collected by the recited “interface snoop unit,” which the Examiner found to
be taught by Olsson (Ans. 5–6 (citing Olsson ¶¶ 36, 43; Fig. 2)). We note
that Olsson’s “Create PDP Context Response” includes information
regarding the location of the mobile station requesting the PDP Context
Procedure. (See Olsson ¶¶ 36, 43; see also id. ¶¶ 35, 37.)
Additionally, Appellants assert that the Examiner has failed to
consider claim 1 as a whole, and in particular, that “[t]here is no disclosure
by Olssen or Andersson and the combination of Olssen and Andersson do
not disclose an RNC analyzer configured to create ‘an association between
user location information and the RNC based on the collected wireless layer
network element information,’ as recited by claim 1.” (App. Br. 21.)
However, Appellants’ conclusory assertion is unsupported by persuasive
argument or evidence that the combined teachings of Olsson and Andersson
would not have suggested, to those of ordinary skill in the art, basing the
associations found by the Examiner to be taught by Andersson (Ans. 6–7) on
the collected wireless layer network information, found by the Examiner to
be taught by Olsson (Ans. 5–6).
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

6
As to Appellants’ blanket “assertion that the Examiner has not
considered each and every claim as a whole” (Reply Br. 5; see also App.
Br. 19–20), we can only consider such attorney argument to the extent that it
points to specific errors in the rejections of the claims. See In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Appellants fail to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Olsson and Andersson teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation.
Rationale to Combine
“Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Appellants contend, “the Examiner has not provided any articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness. Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness.” (Reply Br. 6; see also App. Br. 21–22.)
The Examiner concludes,
[i]t would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have an RNC
analyzer, an association between user location information and
the RNC and map the collected information and the created
association because “The primarily centralised user-registers
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

7
also facilitate the addition of new of priority-groups or the
deletion of old priority-groups for each user.”
(Ans. 7 (citing Andersson ¶ 20).) The Examiner further explains as follows:
[T]he Olsson and Andersson references are analogous with each
other because they are related to wireless technology (for
example, figure 2 of Olsson and figure 1 of Andersson). In
addition, both references allow for various information to be
associated together into tables. Therefore, the Olsson and
Andersson references are combinable.
(Ans. 17.)
We are unpersuaded of error. The Examiner articulates a rationale for
the combination that is more than a conclusory statement and supports it
with a rational underpinning of evidence drawn from the combined
references themselves. Other than to assert that the Examiner’s rationale is
merely conclusory, Appellants present no persuasive argument attacking the
substance of the Examiner’s articulated rationale (see generally App. Br.
21–22; Reply Br. 6). See Baxter Travenol, 952 F.2d at 391.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have failed to persuade us of error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of (1) claim 1; (2)
independent claim 11, which was argued relying on the arguments made for
claim 1 (App. Br. 18–19, 22); and (3) claims 2–10 and 12–20, which
depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and 11 respectively, and were
not separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 18, 19, 22).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–20 is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-003861
Application 11/905,242

8
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc