Ex Parte Grech

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

11710554 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111710,554 02/26/2007 12358 7590 05/02/2016 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sandro Grech 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. 39700-711001US/NC41756US 4334 EXAMINER MEHRA, INDER P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANDRO GRECH Appeal2014-007187 Application 11/710,554 Technology Center 2600 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-007187 Application 11/710,554 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1-38, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. A node comprising at least one processor configured to: communicate with a mobile node via a first connection; communicate with a third node via a first forwarding path between the node and the third node; and following initiation of a handover procedure for handover of the first connection to a second connection between the mobile node and a target network node, transmit data, buffered in the node and intended for the mobile node, to the third node via the first forwarding path between the node and the third node for transmission to the target network node via a second forwarding path between the target network node and the third node, the transmitted data intended for the mobile node sent to the third node in response to a handover complete message indicative that the handover procedure was successful. Prior Art Flore US 2007 /0021120 Al Jan. 25, 2007 (provisional application 60/701,240 filed Jul. 19, 2005) Examiner's Rejections Claims 1-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Flore and Appellant's Admitted Prior Art. 2 Appeal2014-007187 Application 11/710,554 ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We agree with the Examiner's responses to the issues raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief for the reasons given in the Answer. We highlight the following issues raised in the Reply Brief for completeness. Appellant contends the AP A only teaches two nodes, but does not teach an intervening third node as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 7-8. However, Figures 1-3 of the provisional application of Flore ("Flore") teach the intervening third node. See Flore Appendix 3-5. In particular, in Figures 2-3 of Flore, E-Node B corresponds to the claimed "node," user equipment 110 corresponds to the claimed "mobile node," Inter-AS Anchor corresponds to the claimed "third node," and SGSN corresponds to the claimed "target network node" within the meaning of claim 1. Also, as shown in Figure 3, the path between the user equipment and the E-Node B corresponds to the claimed "first connection," the path between the E-Node and Inter-AS Anchor corresponds to the claimed "first forwarding path," and the path between the Inter-AS Anchor and the SGSN corresponds to the claimed "second forwarding path" within the meaning of claim 1. Forwarding data from "node" (E-Node B) to "third node" (Inter-AS Anchor) "via the first forwarding path between" these nodes for transmission to the "target network node" (SGSN) "via a second forwarding path between" these nodes, as suggested by Figures 1-3 of Flore, where the data is sent in response to a handover complete message as taught by paragraphs 12 and 14 of the AP A, is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable 3 Appeal2014-007187 Application 11/710,554 result of forwarding data from the source network to the target network as taught by the AP A. We sustain the rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2-3 8 which fall with claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-38 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 4