Ex Parte Carmon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14175508 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
14/175,508 02/07/2014 Rafael CARMON 2875.5770002 1368
49579 7590 09/05/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ROSARIO, NELSON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFAEL CARMON
and
ALON SHECHTER1
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—10 and 12—21. Claim 11 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “a femtocell based system” (Spec.
12). The invention includes a method and apparatus for restricting “access
1 Appellants identify BROADCOM CORPORATION of Irvine, California
as the Applicant.
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
services to a communication device. The services may be restricted based
upon hardware characteristics, geographic characteristics, user specifications
of the communication device and/or specified rules” (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A femtocell base station, comprising:
a geographic module configured to determine a distance
between the femtocell base station and a communication device;
and
a managing module configured to:
designate a predefined range from the femtocell base
station as a protected area, and
initiate a generation of a message to be sent to the
communication device if the communication device is within the
predefined range.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6, 8, 10, 12, and 14—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Brisebois (US 2011/0086614
Al; publ. Apr. 14, 2011) and Sweeney (US 2010/0304712 Al; publ. Dec. 2,
2010).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Brisebois, Sweeney, and Czaja (US 2009/
0298475 Al; publ. Dec. 3, 2009).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Brisebois nor
Sweeney, alone or in combination, discloses “determin[ing] a distance
2
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
between the femtocell base station and a communication device,” as recited
in independent claims 1,10, and 18 (App. Br. 8—10). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Ans.
15—19). Particularly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Brisebois
teaches or suggests determining “a distance between the femtocell base
station and a communication device,” as claimed, as Brisebois discloses:
[0088] In response to received indication of the foregoing
antenna(s) identity(ies), monitor component 508 can generate
and deliver a “location” alarm that conveys a likely location of
the mobile device, e.g., 104[.]
(Ans. 16). Additionally, paragraphs 7 and 85 of Brisebois also provide
support for this limitation.
Appellants’ paragraph 7 of the Specification also states “WIPO
Publication No. 2009085608 . . . involves determining precise geographic
location of mobile device, and limiting access of mobile device to wireless
communication network,” thus, evidencing it was known in the art at the
time of Appellants’ invention to determine a location of a communication
(mobile) device. Further, the claim is unclear as to how or if the determined
distance is used after it is determined.
Thus, we find the Examiner has provided reasoning and evidence that
Brisebois does indeed teach or suggest determining “a distance between [a]
femtocell base station and a communication device” as broadly claimed in
independent claims 1,10, and 18. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of these claims and claims 2—9, 12—14, 16, 17, 19, and 20,
dependent therefrom and not separately argued.
With respect to dependent claim 21, Appellants contend Brisebois
does not teach or suggest “designating a predefined range” and, further
3
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
contend although Sweeney teaches a ‘“controlled area’ is a large area that
can include several ‘femtocells,’” it does not teach the “‘controlled area’ is a
subset of a range of any particular ‘femtocell’” as recited in claim 21 (App.
Br. 11). We do not agree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Sweeney discloses “designating]
a predefined range ... as a protected area” (Ans. 5, 17; Sweeney 114) as
recited in claim 1, and Brisebois discloses a predefined range is a subset of
the range and the range is determined by the power of the femtocell base
station (Final Act. 15; Ans. 18; Brisebois Figs. 8B and 3; 170). Appellants’
arguments are merely statements that Brisebois does not disclose a subset of
a range of a femtocell base station and Sweeney does not cure Brisebois’
deficiencies, without persuasive argument or evidence (App. Br. 11).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21.
With respect to dependent claim 15, Appellants contend neither
Brisebois nor Sweeney teaches or suggests “wherein the managing module
is configured to designate the protected area based on a transmission delay
between the communication device and the femtocell base station,” as
recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 11). Particularly, Appellants assert Brisebois
teaches decrementing and incrementing transmit power to located a mobile
device, not that the decrements are delays as the Examiner finds (App. Br.
12). We agree.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings that Brisebois’
decrements in power are the same as a transmission delay and the Examiner
has provided no evidence other than to state a decrement and a delay are the
same (Ans. 19—20). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 15.
4
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
We do note however, other than the recitation in claim 15, Appellants’
Specification does not disclose the “managing module is configured to
designate the protected area based on a transmission delay” as claimed;
rather, paragraph 30 of Appellants’ Specification discloses “[t]he area size to
be protected can be determined by the power of femtocell base station 100 or
the distance of the end user from femtocell base station 100.” Paragraph 30
also discloses “Femtocell base station 100 may use the propagation delay or
round trip delay of the end user as a mean [sic] for service restriction”
(emphasis added). Neither of these portions of paragraph 30 support the
claim limitation that it is the managing module that designates a protected
area based on a transmission delay. We note, as paragraph 30 discloses, it is
the femtocell base station that uses the delay to restrict service. There is
nothing in the Specification explicitly stating the managing module of the
femtocell base station designates a protected area based on a transmission
delay between the communication device and the femtocell base station.
Thus, upon any further prosecution of this case, we suggest the Examiner
determine whether there is support for claim 15 under 35U.S.C. § 112.
As to Appellants’ assertion that prosecution should be reopened
because the Examiner failed to respond to Appellants’ prior arguments (App.
Br. 13—14), this issue is not before us as Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal.
Some of Appellants’ options for reopening prosecution, if they so desired,
would have been filing a Request for Continued Prosecution (RCE),
petitioning to allege the Final Office Action was incomplete, or other
appropriate action that would have led to reopening prosecution.
5
Appeal 2016-000330
Application 14/175,508
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 12—14, and 16—21 is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 15 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6