Ex Parte Dinan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2017

12819887 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 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.
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