Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12189262 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/189,262 08/1112008
68103 7590 05/02/2016
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hyo Jin Jung
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.
0203-0070 6685
EXAMINER
TORRES, MARCOS L
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):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYO JIN JUNG and SEUNG EOP KIM1
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
Technology Center 2600
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-21, 23, 25, and 27. Claims 4, 22, 24, 26, and 28 were
previously cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to how a mobile phone re-establishes a
connection with a base station. In particular, a preferred roaming list
("PRL") identifies a number of possible channels, and the application further
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
narrows that list by determining which channels have a sutliciently strong
received signal strength ("RSS"). Spec. Abstract, Claims 1 and 7.
Representative Claims
There are four independent claims, which Appellants have divided
into two groups. Claims 1 and 7 are representative and reproduced below
with key limitations emphasized:
1. A system scan method for a mobile terminal, the method
compnsmg:
evaluating, when the mobile terminal is turned on,
received signal strengths of at least one channel registered to a
preferred roaming list;
determining, for each of the at least one channel, whether
the received signal strength is greater than a preset level;
selecting at least one channel determined as having a
received signal strength greater than the preset level;
creating a candidate channel list comprising the at least
one selected channel; and
performing a full-scan process on the channels listed in
the candidate channel list.
7. A system scan method for a mobile terminal, the method
compnsmg:
updating, when a received signal strength reaches to a
threshold level P of an acquired system, a candidate channel list
by evaluating received signal strengths of all channels listed in
a preferred roaming list and selecting the channels having a
received signal strength greater than a preset level from the
preferred roaming list; and
performing, when the mobile terminal loses the system, a
full-scan process on the channels of the updated candidate
channel list.
2
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16-18 20, 21, 23, 25, and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Koorapaty (US 2002/
0082010 Al; June 27, 2002) in view of Cooper (US 2004/0203745 Al; Oct.
14, 2004). Final Act. 3.
Claims 5, 9, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koorapaty in view of Cooper and further in view of
Das (US 5,978,690; Nov. 2, 1999). Final Act. 6.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Koorapaty teaches or suggests
"determining, for each of the at least one channel, whether the received
signal strength is greater than a preset level," as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Koorapaty teaches or suggests
"performing a full-scan process on the channels listed in the candidate
channel list," as recited in claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been
obvious to use Cooper's preferred roaming list in place of Koorapaty's
private operating frequencies for purposes of claim 1?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Koorapaty teaches or suggests
"updating, when a received signal strength reaches to a threshold level P of
an acquired system, a candidate channel list by evaluating received signal
strengths of all channels listed in a preferred roaming list," as recited in
claim 7?
3
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
ANALYSIS
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in their Brief. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose
not to have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 11-16, 21, and 25
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Koorapaty teaches analyzing
the received signal strengths of channels in a list and Cooper teaches a list of
channels can be a preferred roaming list. Final Act. 3--4.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred for a variety of reasons, none
of which we find persuasive. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action and the Examiner's Answer.
Below, we highlight a few specific findings and arguments for emphasis.
First, Appellants argue Koorapaty does not disclose "determining, for
each of the at least one channel, whether the received signal strength is
greater than a preset level," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 4-5. In
particular, Appellants argue Koorapaty does not disclose "a determination of
whether the RSS of each of the at least one channel registered to the POFs is
greater than a preset level" because "Koorapaty simply discloses that the two
strongest signals are listed, regardless of whether their RSS is greater than
any preset level." Id. at 5. Appellants' arguments, however, are not
commensurate with the claim scope as written.
As the Examiner correctly points out, claim 1 merely recites "at least
one channel registered to a preferred roaming list," so subsequent references
to "the at least one channel" do not require all channels in the preferred
roaming list, but rather are satisfied by any channel in the list, regardless of
4
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
whether the list includes other channels. Ans. 4. We also agree with the
Examiner that Figure 4 of Koorapaty expressly discloses testing whether
"RSS 2: threshold?" for at least one channel in the list, which meets the
broadest reasonable interpretation for both "determining" and "a preset
level." Id. Thus, Koorapaty in view of Cooper teaches or suggests this
limitation.
Second, Appellants argue "the claimed invention performs a full scan
for at least one channel having a received signal strength greater than a
preset level whereas Koorapaty only performs a power up scan when the
signal strength of one of the strongest of two channels is below HISTORY_
THRESHOLD." App. Br. 7. Appellants concede that the wideband scan
disclosed in Koorapaty "may be considered a full-scan" (id. at 6), but argue
that such a wideband scan of "'all the channels in every frequency band"'
fails to meet the claimed limitation of a full-scan process "on the channels
listed in the candidate channel list" (id. at 7 (quoting Koorapaty ,-i 51)).
We are not persuaded of error. As the Examiner points out, a "full-
scan process" is not defined explicitly in the Specification and "no detail
about the full scan is claimed." Ans. 6. Appellants have not persuasively
shown the claimed "full-scan process" is not taught by the steps in
Koorapaty that occur if the received signal strength exceeds the threshold,
such as the channel synchronization beginning in Block A3/B4. Koorapaty
,-i 57, FIG. 4; see also Ans. 7. Moreover, Appellants concede that
Koorapaty's wideband scan constitutes a "full-scan process." App. Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the flowchart in Figure 4 of Koorapaty
discloses multiple ways that result in a wideband scan even if the received
5
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
signal strength is greater than the threshold, such as answering "No" in
either of Blocks A3/B4 or A4/B5. Ans. 7-8.
The issue then is whether Koorapaty' s wideband scan constitutes a
full-scan process "on the channels listed in the candidate channel list." We
agree with Appellants that Koorapaty discloses the wideband scan is "an
ordered search through all the channels in every frequency band as specified
in an IRDB [i.e., intelligent roaming database]." Koorapaty ,-i 51. The
Examiner correctly explains that "the question here to be answered is if the
claim language exclude[s] the scanning of other channels." Ans. 9. Put
another way, does performing a full-scan process on all channels satisfy the
claimed limitation of "performing a full-scan process on the channels listed
in the candidate channel list"? We agree with the Examiner that it does. As
the Examiner explains, the claim language is not limited to performing a
full-scan process "only" on the channels in the candidate channel list. Ans.
9. Rather, so long as a full-scan process is performed on the channels in the
candidate channel list, the claim language is satisfied regardless of whether
any other channels are also scanned. Appellants' argument that in
Koorapaty "the full scan is only performed once the POP frequencies ...
have failed" is similarly misplaced because nothing in the claim prevents
additional actions from occurring between the claimed steps so long as the
full-scan process is eventually performed. Reply Br. 3.
Third, Appellants argue that Koorapaty's private operating frequency
("POP") is not equivalent to and could not be replaced by Cooper's
preferred roaming list ("PRL"). App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that a "POP is
an operatingfrequency" while a "PRL is a list of frequencies." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Figure 4 of Koorapaty teaches
6
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
measuring the received signal strength "on POFs" (i.e., multiple frequencies,
not just a single frequency) and the Specification teaches analyzing "all the
POFs stored in the wireless terminal station." Koorapaty iJ 54. Figure 4 of
Koorapaty even uses the word "list" in describing two channels selected
from the plurality of POFs. Appellants have not persuasively shown how
the storage of multiple frequencies would not teach or suggest a list of
frequencies, nor how a list of private frequencies is not analogous to a list of
public frequencies, nor how there would be any unpredictable results. We
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding the reasons
and results of combining Koorapaty and Cooper. Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 11-16, 21, and 25, which Appellants argue are patentable
for similar reasons. See App. Br. 8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claims 7-10, 17-20, 23, and 27
The Examiner finds claim 7 obvious over Koorapaty in view of
Cooper, but relies exclusively upon Koorapaty as teaching or suggesting
"updating, when a received signal strength reaches to a threshold level P of
an acquired system, a candidate channel list by evaluating received signal
strengths of all channels listed in a preferred roaming list." Final Act. 3, 5.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "Koorapaty makes no
disclosure that there is any updating of a candidate channel list," let alone
updating "performed when an RSS reaches a threshold of an acquired
system." App. Br. 9. In response, the Examiner points specifically to
paragraphs 75-76 ofKoorapaty. Ans. 11.
Appellants' arguments fail to show the Examiner erred. We find that
paragraph 7 5 of Koorapaty teaches measuring a first mean received signal
7
Appeal2014-006967
Application 12/189,262
strength, rescanning each channel to measure a second mean received signal
strength, and re-performing the power-up process if the second mean differs
from the first mean "by more than a predetermined amount." Applying this
teaching to claim 7, the second mean received signal strength teaches the
claimed "a received signal strength"; the first mean plus the predetermined
amount teaches the claimed "a threshold level P of an acquired system"; and
Figure 4 ofKoorapaty teaches re-performing the first power-up process,
which not only evaluates the received signal strengths of all channels in the
list but also revises the list of the two strongest channels (i.e., the claimed
"candidate channel list"). Appellants have not persuasively shown how the
combination of Koorapty and Cooper fails to teach any part of the updating
step.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7, and
claims 8-10, 17-20, 23, and 27, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 10; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-3, 5-21, 23, 25, and 27.
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8