Ex Parte DinanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 15, 201712819887 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/819,887 06/21/2010 Esmail Dinan 6124 1066 118345 7590 05/15/2017 Sprint Corporation 6391 Sprint Parkway KSOPHT0101-Z2100 Overland Park, KS 66251-2100 EXAMINER LU, WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2624 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/15/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ESMAIL DINAN ____________________ Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JUSTIN BUSCH, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. 3–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 14, and 26 are independent. The claims relate generally to “mobile communication networks and, more particularly, to a system and method for controlling paging cycles in a wireless network.” Spec. 1:10–12. Claims 1 and 14 are representative and reproduced below, with disputed limitations italicized and corrections1 indicated: 1. A method of establishing paging cycles in a wireless communications system, comprising: receiving a paging cycle request from each of [a] plurality of mobile stations via one or more base stations; in response to the paging cycle requests, transmitting commands from the one or more base stations to each of the plurality of mobile stations to: assign a first portion of [the] plurality of mobile stations to a first paging group, wherein mobile stations in the first paging group can be paged in paging cycles at a first time interval between paging cycles; assign a second portion of the plurality of mobile stations to a second paging group, wherein mobile stations in the second paging group can be paged in paging cycles at a second time interval between paging cycles, the second time interval being twice the first time interval; and assign each of the mobile stations in the second paging group to a first subgroup or a second subgroup, wherein mobile stations in the first subgroup and mobile stations in the second subgroup can be paged in alternating respective ones of the paging cycles together with all of the mobile stations in the first paging group, such that mobile stations in the first subgroup are 1 The changes (indicated in square brackets) correct language related to a lack of proper antecedent basis. These errors do not render the claims indefinite, but Appellant should review and amend the claims to correct such errors. Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 3 not paged in the same paging cycle as mobile stations in the second subgroup. 14. A method comprising: assigning a paging cycle time to each of a plurality of mobile stations; assigning each of [the] plurality of mobile stations to one of a plurality of paging groups based on the paging cycle time assigned to each of the plurality of mobile stations; [and] assigning each of the plurality of mobile stations within a first of the plurality of paging groups to a selected one of a plurality of subgroups, wherein each of the plurality of mobile stations in the first paging group can be paged at time intervals associated with the first paging group, but wherein each of the plurality of mobile stations in different ones of the plurality of subgroups are paged in different paging cycles. REJECTION Claims 1–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2011/0051668 A1; Mar. 3, 2011) and Worrall (US 2008/0188247 A1; Aug. 7, 2008). Final Act. 3–20. OPINION The Examiner finds the combination of Lee and Worrall teaches or suggests the matter recited in claims 1–38. Final Act. 3–20. Appellant argues independent claims 1, 14, and 26 are patentable over Lee and Worrall. Id. at 10–16. Appellant raises no separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 2–13, 15–25, and 27–38, which depend from claims 1, 14, and 26, respectively. See App. Br. 6. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we group the dependent claims with their respective independent claims. Appellant asserts the combination of Lee and Worrall fails to teach or suggest assigning paging groups and subgroups or the specific relationships Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 4 of the paging times of mobile stations in different groups and subgroups, as recited in independent claims 1, 14, and 26. App. Br. 10–16. Specifically, Appellant argues Lee discloses: (1) dividing mobile stations into paging groups based on geographic location, see Lee Fig. 1, ¶¶ 4–6; (2) assigning mobile stations to subgroups based on paging times, see Lee ¶¶ 210–214; and (3) the division into paging groups based on geography and assigning stations based paging times are independent of each other. App. Br. 10–11, 14–16; Reply Br. 3. Appellant thus contends that, to the extent the Examiner relies on Lee’s disclosure of assigning mobile stations to paging groups based on geography, the paging groups are not based on paging times, and, to the extent the Examiner relies on Lee’s disclosure of assigning mobile stations to paging groups based on paging times, those groups are not further subdivided. App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3. Appellant further argues the claims recite a first paging cycle for mobile stations in a first paging group and a second paging cycle (twice that of the first paging cycle) for mobile stations in a second paging group, and the combination of Lee and Worrall does not teach “paging the mobile stations in different subgroups in different paging cycles.” Id. at 12–13, 14–16; Reply Br. 4 (“Neither Lee nor Worrall define the paging of subgroups of mobile stations (i.e., in a second paging group) with reference to the paging of mobile stations in a separate paging group (i.e., the first paging group).”), 5–6. With respect to the Examiner’s mapping of the grouping of mobile stations in Lee to the recited groups and subgroups, we agree with Appellant that the groups the Examiner points to in Lee do not teach or suggest assigning mobile stations into a first group and a second group, where the Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 5 first group’s interval between paging cycles is twice the interval between paging cycles of the second group. Specifically, the Examiner states “references to a paging cycle refer to the paging group and references to the paging interval can be attributed to the paging subgroups,” and “Lee in view of Worrall suggests a paging group assignment on the basis of paging times followed by assignment of mobile stations in a particular paging group to subgroups as recited in claim 1.” Ans. 21–22 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds Figures 7 and 14 of Lee teach choosing a first paging cycle for a first group and a second paging cycle for a second group. Id. at 22. We understand these statements as a finding that Lee’s paging cycles teach assigning mobile stations to first and second paging groups, and Lee’s paging intervals, in view of Worral, teach assigning the mobile stations in the second paging group to first and second subgroups. However, such a finding is based on an incorrect reading of Lee. First, with respect to Lee’s distinction between paging cycles and paging intervals, we note that Lee explains “mobile stations belonging to the same paging sub group can have the same paging interval regardless of the paging group,” such that mobile stations in different subgroups wake up at different paging intervals but mobile stations in the same subgroup “wake up at the subframe of the same paging interval.” Lee ¶ 112 (emphases added). Reviewing Lee’s figures and description, it is clear that the “interval” referred to in Lee is a specific subframe, within a paging cycle, at which the particular subgroups listen for their paging messages. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 7, 8, 10, 13–18, ¶¶ 117–119. As argued by Appellant, App. Br. 10, Lee discloses assigning mobile stations to paging groups based on the physical location of the mobile Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 6 station. See Lee, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 4–6. Moreover, Lee’s disclosure of multi-level paging cycles discloses setting a paging cycle value negotiated between an individual mobile station and a base station based on the frequency at which the mobile station is paged—i.e., when a mobile station “is not paged for a long time, power consumption and paging overhead can be reduced if the paging cycle of the mobile station increases.” Id. ¶¶ 206–208. Specifically, Lee discloses an example using three levels of paging cycles, doubling the interval between paging cycles at successive levels. Id. ¶¶ 209–217, Fig. 20. Notably, however, Lee teaches neither assigning mobile stations to paging groups based on the disclosed multi-level paging nor “choosing” a level for a paging group. Lee suggests mobile stations move automatically from one group to another depending on the frequency at which they’re paged and the Examiner’s findings lack a rationale or explanation of how a paging cycle would be chosen for a particular group of mobile stations. Furthermore, to the extent that each level of the disclosed multi-level paging teaches a “paging group,” Lee fails to teach assigning mobile stations in any such groups to subgroups, as recited in the claims. We also agree with Appellant that the claimed paging cycle intervals and the relationship of the cycles at which the respective groups and subgroups are paged is not taught or suggested by the proposed combination of Lee and Worrall. The Examiner finds that, because paging cycles are continuous, “all pages from the first and second paging sub groups would logically fall into a paging cycle of the first paging group.” Ans. 22. To the extent the Examiner is merely stating that the mobile stations in paging group 2 will be paged in a cycle in which the mobile stations in paging group 1 are paged due to the fact that group 1 mobile stations are paged Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 7 during every cycle, we agree. However, that does not address the recited limitations that mobile stations in subgroups 1 and 2 are paged in alternate cycles such that mobile stations in subgroup 1 are not paged in the same cycle as mobile stations in subgroup 2. Furthermore, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Figures 7 and 14 of Lee depict using offsets for paging messages and that the offset for certain subgroup messages may “span beyond one paging cycle.” Id. at 23. Figure 14 of Lee, and the accompanying description in paragraphs 154 through 160, describe transmitting a paging indication, which is a bitmap notifying all subgroups whether paging messages for respective subgroups are being transmitted, for a particular paging group (e.g., “paging group 1”) in “the first subframe of each paging cycle.” Lee ¶¶ 155, 157 (emphasis added). Each of the subgroups for which paging messages are transmitted listens at a particular subframe determined based on the number of the paging subgroup—the example in Figure 14 discloses transmitting the paging message in subframe i for a first subgroup and an additional 8 subframes later for each subsequent subgroup (i.e., subframes 9, 17, 25, etc.). Id. ¶¶ 158, 167–178. Each of these subframes, however, is in the same paging cycle as each other subframe. See Lee Fig. 14. Thus, Figure 14 of Lee depicts all mobile stations within a paging group, regardless of subgroup, receive a paging indication in each paging cycle. The example in Figure 14 also depicts paging subgroups 1 and 2 in consecutive paging cycles and paging subgroups 3 through n in the second, but not the first, paging cycle. Although all mobile stations in a subgroup may not receive paging messages in each paging cycle, the Examiner has not demonstrated Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 8 the recited relationship regarding paging mobile stations in different subgroups in alternate paging cycles. We also note the statement in Lee regarding Figure 7, cited by the Examiner, that “all mobile stations belonging to the same paging group have the same paging cycle regardless of a paging interval (paging subframe) that can be defined by the paging sub group.” Lee ¶ 118. This disclosure in Lee is contrary to, and thus cannot teach or suggest, the recited limitation that “mobile stations in the first subgroup are not paged in the same paging cycle as mobile stations in the second subgroup.” In the parenthetical of that quote, Lee clarifies that the paging interval referenced is the paging subframe, which the subgroups may define, within a paging cycle. For the reasons discussed above, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that the combination of Lee and Worrall teaches or suggests the recited relationships between the mobile stations, groups, subgroups, paging cycles, and intervals between paging cycles. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claims 1, 14, and 26 as well as dependent claims 2–13, 15–25, and 27–38, which include the same disputed limitations via their ultimate dependency from independent claims 1, 14, and 26, respectively. Because the above-addressed issues are dispositive of the appeal, we do not address the Examiner’s other findings and reasoning or Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1–38. Appeal 2015-005694 Application 12/819,887 9 DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject 1– 38. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation