Ex Parte Chou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13343605 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/343,605 01/04/2012
109673 7590 05/19/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shuang-An Chou
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.
251325-3281 5235
EXAMINER
D AGOSTA, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUANG-AN CHOU and PO-HAN CHU
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of Claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed February 11, 2014 ("Reply Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed December 30, 2013 ("Ans."); and the Final
Office Action mailed August 27, 2013 ("Final Act").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is MediaTek
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a communications apparatus and method of
providing a serving network identifier to another communications apparatus
by obtaining the serving network identifier, incorporating the serving
network identifier into a message, and transmitting the message to the
serving network identified by the serving network identifier. See Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized and some formatting added:
1. A communications apparatus, comprising:
a processor, coupled to a subscriber identity card and a
radio transceiver module,
wherein the subscriber identity card camps on a cell
operating in a serving network having a serving network
identifier via the radio transceiver module, and
wherein the processor at least comprises:
a first processor logic unit obtaining the serving network
identifier;
a second processor logic unit carrying the serving
network identifier in a message to be transmitted to the serving
network; and
a third processor logic unit transmitting the message to
the serving network via the radio transceiver module.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Baker et al. us 5,530,807 June 25, 1996
2
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
("Baker")
Patel
Jiang
Witzel et al.
("Witzel")
Classon et al.
("Classon")
Govindswamy et al.
(''Govindswamy'')
Abramson et al.
("Abramson")
3GPP
us 5,835,856
US 2007 /0254636 Al
US 2008/0117893 Al
US 7 ,570,951 B2
US 8,036,658 B2
US 8,036,660 B2
Nov. 10, 1998
Nov. 1, 2007
May 22, 2008
Aug.4,2009
Oct. 11, 2011
Oct. 11, 2011
3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Specification Group Core Network and Terminals;
Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification;
Core network protocols; Stage 3, 1---645, 3GPP TS
24.008Vl1.0.0 (2011) ("3GPP").
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Classon, Abramson, and
Govindswamy. Final Act. 4--9.
2. Claims 3, 9, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Classon, Abramson, Govindswamy, Patel, and
Jiang. Final Act. 9--12.
3. Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Classon, Abramson, Govindswamy, Patel, and
Witzel. Final Act. 13.
3
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
4. Claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Classon, Abramson, Govindswamy, and Baker.
Final Act. 14--15.
5. Claims 16 and 174 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Classon, Abramson, Govindswamy, and 3GPP
Layer 3 document. Final Act. 15-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments.
CLAIMS 1-15 AND 17-19
Appellants argue Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 as a group. App. Br. 5-10;
Reply Br. 1-7. Appellants present similar arguments for Claims 10, 11, and
18 as a group. App. Br. 10-13.
Appellants contend that Classon does not teach communicating a
"serving network identifier" through the "serving network," as recited in
Claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants further assert that Classon is directed to
communications occurring directly between phones on a single network with
no need for communicating a serving network identifier. App. Br. 7-8.
Appellants next argue that the cited passage of Classon teaches the user
terminal acquires wireless parameters from other nearby user terminals.
4 Although claim 17 is omitted from the statement of this rejection, the
body of the rejection discusses the limitations of claim 17. We consider this
inadvertent omission by the Examiner a harmless error.
4
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
App. Br. 9--10 (citing Classon col. 3, 11. 30-56). According to Appellants,
Classon teaches that the base transceiver station (BTS) broadcasts its ID
information to the user equipment, as opposed to the user equipment
broadcasting the BTS ID information in a message to the serving
BTS/network. Reply Br. 4.
We first note the claims do not recite where the "first processing
logic" obtains the "serving network identifier" from. Additionally, the
claims do not preclude a "communications apparatus" from communicating
directly with a "peer communications apparatus." The Examiner finds
Classon teaches exchanging the BTS ID information, including the Serving
Network ID, among the BTS and mobile terminals. Ans. 3--4 (citing
Classon col. 3, 11. 30-51 ). The Examiner finds Classon teaches the mobile
collects and reports network information to the BTS. Ans. 4. We agree with
the Examiner's findings. Classon at least suggests the user terminal
collecting wireless system parameters and communicating them to the base
station. Ans. 9; see Classon col. 3, 11. 48-51 ("The collection element 169
[of the user terminal] further may be configured and arranged to collect the
timely wireless system parameters before the user terminal communicates
with base station 105.").
Appellants contend that base transceiver station identification (BTS
ID) is system information, not a "serving network identifier," as recited in
the claim. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants argue the serving network identifier is
not inherent in Classon because Classon teaches only one network in which
"no serving network identifier would need to be incorporated into the
message transmitted by a user terminal." Reply Br. 5-6.
5
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
The Examiner finds Classon teaches the network information the
mobile unit transmits to the BTS includes a destination address including a
Serving Network identifier. Ans. 5; see also Classon col. 4, 11. 19-23
("identities of neighboring base stations"). The Examiner additionally
explains that the serving network/BTS ID is inherent in the message the
mobile unit sends the BTS; otherwise, the message would be meaningless
and communications would not occur. Ans. 9. We disagree with
Appellants' argument that the serving network identifier needs not be
transmitted to the serving network in view of Classon's alleged teaching of
one network. Reply Br. 5---6. We note the claims do not recite a plurality of
networks. The Examiner's reasoning is based on whether the mobile unit
can communicate with the core network in Classon, not whether the mobile
unit can communicate with the core network or another network. See
Classon col. 4, 11. 8-10 ("Accordingly, when a call in made with user
terminal 200, data is transmitted from user terminal 200 to the base station
210, which then transmits the data to the core network 215.").
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, and
18. We likewise sustain the rejection of Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-15, 17, and
19 for which no additional persuasive arguments have been presented. App.
Br. 15.
CLAIM20
Appellants argue the combination of Classon, Abramson, and
Govindswamy does not teach the limitations of Claim 20. App. Br. 13.
Specifically, Appellants merely present a bare assertion that the claim
limitations are not present in the prior art. App. Br. 13; see In re Lovin, 652
6
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellants further note Claim 20 recites
an aspect (i.e., receiving a message) of the invention complementary to that
of Claim 1 (i.e., transmitting a message) with an additional step that
Appellants characterize as "notifying the user of the user (user of the
receiving phone) of the serving network that is associated with the
transmitting/initiating phone." App. Br. 13-14.
We note the additional step in the claim recites "notifying the user of
the serving network associated with the peer communications apparatus" but
does not recite the information that the user is notified of. As mentioned
above, the Examiner finds Classon teaches exchanging the BTS ID
information, including the Serving Network ID, among the BTS and mobile
terminals. Ans. 3--4 (citing Classon col. 3, 11. 30-51), 13. Additionally, the
Examiner's findings indicate Govindswamy teaches "notifying the user of
the serving network," as recited in the claim. Final Act. 7-8 (quoting
Govindswamy col. 1, 11. 25--40) ("client terminal performance and user
satisfaction" in a "network acquisition process"). In this quoted passage,
Govindswamy at least suggests the client terminal notifying the user of the
client terminal that service with the network has been obtained. In view of
the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claim 20.
CLAIM 16
Appellants argue 3GPP does not teach using the "calling party sub-
address information element field," for "carrying the serving network
identifier," as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 14--15. This argument is not
persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references.
7
Appeal2014-004120
Application 13/343,605
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner relies upon the combination of Classon and 3GPP to
teach the limitations added by Claim 16. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner finds
3GPP teaches the "calling party sub-address information element field."
Ans. 13-14; see also Final Act. 15-16 (citing 3GPP p. 613). The Examiner
further finds the "calling party sub-address information element field," a
standard in the communications industry, can be used to pass along network
information taught in Classon, including the "serving network identifier."
Ans. 14. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
The rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
AFFIRMED.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
8