Ex Parte Kazmi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 2016

12443198 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

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. 12/443,198 12/22/2009 Muhammad Kazmi 4015-6476 / P22851-US1 7099 24112 7590 03/01/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER DUFFY, JAMES P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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 MUHAMMAD KAZMI and TARMO KUNINGAS ____________ Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26‒35, 39‒48, and 50‒51.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 36‒38 and 49 have been objected to as depending from rejected base claims, and claims 52‒55 have been indicated as allowable. See App. Br. 2. Claims 1‒25 have been cancelled. See id. Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ present patent application relates to detecting network load and optimizing network resources in a telecommunication system. Spec. 1:5‒9. Claim 26 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 26. A method, performed by a radio network node in a wireless communication network, for detecting the load on transport network interfaces as an input for a radio resource management (RRM) function, wherein the radio network node is part of a transport network, functions as a serving radio network node, and is responsible for performing the RRM function, the method comprising: the serving radio network node identifying a transport network interface from which transport load measurements are required for the RRM function, and a target radio network node associated with the identified transport network interface; the serving radio network node requesting the target radio network node to perform transport load measurements on the identified transport network interface, the request specifying measurement parameters and reporting conditions for the target radio network node; the serving radio network node receiving the measurement results from the target radio network node when the reporting conditions are fulfilled; and the serving radio network node basing performance of the RRM function at least partly on the received measurement results; wherein the transport network includes resources on a fixed part of a radio access network portion of the wireless communication network. Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 3 The Examiner’s Rejections3 Claims 26, 33‒35, 41, 50, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain (US 2002/0181394 A1; Dec. 5, 2002) and Chandra (US 6,397,359 B1; May 28, 2002). See Ans. 3‒10. Claims 27, 28, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, and Applicants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). See Ans. 10‒12. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Gilliland (US 2006/0067270 A1; Mar. 30, 2006). See Ans. 12‒13. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Vialen (US 2001/0018342 A1; Aug. 30, 2001). See Ans. 13‒14. Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Honkasalo (US 6,219,343 B1; Apr. 17, 2001). See Ans. 14‒15. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, and Kodikara (US 2007/0155390 A1; July 5, 2007). See Ans. 15‒16. Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Kodikara. See Ans. 16‒17. 3 In the Answer, the Examiner added a new ground of rejection, rejecting claims 26‒49 and 52‒55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. This rejection was later withdrawn in a Miscellaneous Communication to Applicant, mailed January 9, 2014. Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 4 Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Toskala (US 2007/0206548 A1; Sep. 6, 2007). See Ans. 18‒19. Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, and Toskala. See Ans. 19‒20. Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, AAPA, and Bruin (US 2003/0060209 A1; Mar. 27, 2003). See Ans. 20‒21. Claims 46 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, and Bernhard (US 2003/0095552 A1; May 22, 2003). See Ans. 21‒23. Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain, Chandra, and Kneckt (US 2008/0056125 A1; Mar. 6, 2008). See Ans. 23. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Partain and Chandra teaches or suggests “the serving radio network node requesting the target radio network node to perform transport load measurements on the identified transport network interface,” as recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 6‒8; Reply Br. 3‒5. In particular, Appellants argue Partain does not teach or suggest the egress device (the claimed “transport radio network node”) performing load measurements, instead disclosing interior nodes along the path between the ingress device (the claimed “serving radio network node”) and the egress device performing load measurements. App. Br. 6‒7 (citing Partain Fig. 2, Fig. 3, ¶¶ 39, 42). Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 5 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions. As found by the Examiner, Partain teaches the ingress device transmitting a “probe packet” to the egress device along a path containing interior nodes. Ans. 25 (citing Partain ¶¶ 37‒39). The interior nodes perform congestion measurements. Partain ¶¶ 37‒39. As depicted in Figure 2, the ingress device and egress device also perform congestion measurements and mark the probe packet if there is congestion. Partain Fig. 2 (lines pointing from “Congestion? Mark packet” to “Ingress” and “Egress”). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Partain teaches an ingress device (the claimed “serving radio network node”) sending a probe packet (the claimed “request”) to an egress device (the claimed “transport radio network node”) to perform congestion measurements (the claimed “transport load measurements”). See Ans. 25‒26. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Chandra teaches or suggests “the request specifying measurement parameters and reporting conditions for the target radio network node,” as recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 8‒9. In particular, Appellants argue Chandra teaches a testing schedule, which could be interpreted as a single measurement parameter, but Chandra does not teach multiple measurement parameters or reporting conditions. App. Br. 8‒9. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Chandra teaches measurement parameters and reporting conditions. As found by the Examiner, Chandra teaches a testing schedule that defines the times for performance of load measurements. Ans. 28 (citing Chandra 13:5‒27, 19:65‒20:44). The testing schedule includes threshold criteria used to determine whether various aspects of performance exceed thresholds. See Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 6 Final Act. 8 (citing Chandra 22:38‒57). The testing schedule, including the threshold criteria, comprise “measurement parameters” for performing load measurements. Further, Chandra teaches the various threshold criteria may trigger reporting of results, including threshold crossing information. Chandra 20:45‒58. Accordingly, the threshold criteria also comprise “reporting conditions.” Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Partain and Chandra because Partain is directed to dynamic measurement requests while Chandra is directed to performing measurements at predefined static intervals. See App. Br. 9‒10; Reply Br. 5‒7. Appellants argue the static requests of Chandra would not be useful for the admission control functions performed in Partain because the measurements would be stale when admission control is performed. Reply Br. 6. Appellants further argue Chandra’s static measurements would unnecessarily increase network traffic, contrary to the purpose of Partain. Reply Br. 6‒7. We disagree. The Examiner relies on Partain for teaching a request to perform load measurements and on Chandra for teaching the request specifying measurement parameters and reporting conditions. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, the rejection does not rely upon simply adding the requests of Chandra to the requests of Partain. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .”). Instead, the rejection relies on modifying the dynamic requests taught by Partain with the measurement parameters and reporting conditions taught Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 7 by Chandra. As found by the Examiner, Chandra teaches that its testing schedule may be updated. Ans. 29 (citing Chandra 20:33‒36). Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood from Chandra that its static intervals for performing testing may be changed to suit the needs of the network. Appellants have not asserted that modifying Partain’s request with Chandra’s measurement parameters and reporting conditions would have been beyond the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent such an assertion, we “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ,” and find a person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties within their level of skill. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). See also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Partain and Chandra. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 26. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Partain and Chandra. We also sustain the rejection of claims 27‒35, 39‒48, 50, and 51, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 10‒14. Appeal 2014-004428 Application 12/443,198 8 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26‒35, 39‒48, 50, and 51. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED