Ex Parte Franceschini et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

11658845 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

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. 11/658,845 01/29/2007 Daniele Franceschini 09952.0104 8334 22852 7590 08/28/2014 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER STERNBANE, LAURENCE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2014 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 DANIELE FRANCESCHINI and NICOLA PIO MAGNANI ____________________ Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 39 – 55, 57 – 72, and 74 – 76. Claims 1 – 38, 56, and 73 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to method and system for controlling admission in mobile communication networks, related network and computer program product therefor. Claim 39, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 39. A method for controlling admission of calls to a mobile communication network having cells, wherein the mobile communication network includes a resource and at least one predetermined threshold load level of operation wherein exceeding said predetermined threshold load level results in cell coverage holes, the method comprising: detecting a current load level value in uplink or downlink; comparing the current load level value with said predetermined threshold load level; and admitting a call to said mobile communication network by allowing exceeding said predetermined threshold load level if after the admitting of the call, the mobile communication network is able to: maintain existing calls already in progress; and detect new call requests coming from the coverage holes. Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chheda US 6,075,815 June 13, 2000 Khan US 6,400,954 B1 June 4, 2002 Cave US 6,631,269 B1 Oct. 7, 2003 Seguin EP 1 326 465 A1 July 9, 2003 Shimada EP 1 339 251 A2 Aug. 27, 2003 L. Mendo & J.M. Hernando, Uplink and Downlink Traffic Capacity Performance in WCDMA Systems, Wireless Design Conference (WDC 2002), London, UK, May 2002 (“Mendo”). REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 39, 52 – 55, 57, 67 – 72, 75, and 76 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada, in view of Khan, and further in view of Seguin. Claims 40 – 46, 50, 51, and 58 – 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada in view of Khan and Seguin, and further in view of Cave. Claims 47 and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada in view of Khan, Cave, and Seguin, and further in view of Chheda. Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 4 Claims 48, 49, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shimada in view of Khan, Cave, and Seguin, and further in view of Mendo. Claims 56, 73, and 74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seguin in view of Cave.1 ANALYSIS The Examiner maintains that paragraphs 15 and 18 of the Seguin reference teach admitting a call even if the admission of the call would cause the cell to exceed a predetermined operational low threshold. (Ans. 7). The Examiner paraphrases Appellants’ arguments and provides two pages of general and responsive arguments thereto. The Examiner maintains that the Seguin reference teaches and suggests cell shrinkage or breathing and that based on the gain which is compared to a threshold as a function of maximum cell load and accepting a new call if it exceeds a predetermined threshold while maintaining the ability to process new call requests. (Ans. 20). Additionally, the Examiner maintains that the Khan reference “teaches admitting a new call, even if the threshold is exceeded, by reducing the resources allocated to the new call.” (Ans. 20). Appellants contend that “Khan clearly discloses that if network resources are insufficient for a new call, either the information rate of ongoing calls or the new call is reduced. Neither way, however, would exceed the capacity of the network.” (Reply Br. 4). Khan discloses: [I]n some implementations, designers and/or network operators may opt to increase the throughput of the air interface to a point 1 The Examiner relies upon the Seguin and Cave references for claims 56 and 73, but these claims have been canceled. Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 5 which reaches or exceeds the capacity of the access network. Accordingly, it would also be desirable to find techniques for controlling allocation of call blocking and/or packet delay which will result when the access network reaches or exceeds its capacity limits. (Col. 2, ll. 40 – 46). We agree with Appellants, and we find that the relied upon portions of the Khan reference provide no teaching or suggestion to address the claimed situation. Appellants further maintain that the Examiner’s reliance upon the Seguin reference is in error since the Examiner is relying upon two different thresholds; gain and maximum load capacity. (App. Br. 11 – 14; Reply Br. 4). We agree with Appellants that the relied upon portions of the Seguin reference at paragraphs 3, 6, 9, 15, and 18 (Ans. 7) do not teach or fairly suggest the claimed “admitting a call to said mobile communication network by allowing exceeding said predetermined threshold load level if after the admitting of the call, the mobile communication network is able to: maintain existing calls already in progress; and detect new call requests coming from the coverage holes,” as maintained by the Examiner. Additionally, we find the Examiner’s alternative and changing positions in the Examiner's Answer evidences that the Examiner is attempting to reconstruct the claimed invention from the prior art references. (Ans. 6 and 20). For the above reasons we conclude that the Examiner has not presented a persuasive showing of obviousness of independent claim 39 and its respective dependent claims. Similarly, we find error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of independent claims 57 and 74 for the reasons discussed above and their respective dependent claims 52 – 55, 67 – 72, 75, and 76. Appeal 2012-001394 Application 11/658,845 6 The Examiner has not identified how the additional references remedy the above-noted deficiencies. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 40 –51 and 58 – 69 for the reasons discussed above with respect to their parent claims. With respect to independent claim 74, the Examiner relies upon the Cave and Seguin references to evidence obviousness. (Ans. 16 – 17). Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 39 and maintain that the Cave reference does not remedy the noted deficiency. (App. Br. 21 – 22; Reply Br. 6). We agree with Appellants that the Cave reference does not remedy the deficiency in the Seguin reference discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 39 – 55, 57 – 72, and 74 – 76 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 39 – 55, 57 – 72, and 74 – 76 are reversed. REVERSED msc