Ex Parte Kuriyama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12920918 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/920,918 09/03/2010
71799 7590 03/21/2016
Mr, Ryoichi Harada
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
SUITE 560
Washington, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masaki Kuriyama
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.
J-10-0409 9063
EXAMINER
SHARMA, GAUTAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
necipca@necam.com
Yuki.Kandathil@necam.com
Ayano.Reid@necam.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAKI KURIY AMA
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-11. App. Br. 13. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies NEC Corporation as the Real Party in Interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to positional information of radio terminals. See
Abstract.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. The claims have not been argued
separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A mobile communication system comprising:
a radio base station capable of radio communication with
a plurality of radio terminals;
a multiplex transmission apparatus that consolidates lines
from a plurality of said radio base stations; and
a core network unit that calculates the value of each
communication band that is assigned for each transmission line
between said radio base stations and said multiplex
transmission apparatus based on positional information of each
of said radio terminals;
wherein said multiplex transmission apparatus and said
radio base station transmit and receive information by a
communication band for each said radio base stations that is
calculated by said core network unit.
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 13, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed Apr. 28, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Feb. 28,
2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed June 14, 2013, "Final Act."), and the
Specification (filed Sept. 3, 2010, "Spec.") for their respective details.
2
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Razoumov et al. US 2002/0093976 Al July 18, 2002
Satt et al. US 2003/0039233 Al Feb.27,2003
Bejerano et al. us 2005/0059404 Mar. 17, 2005
Mizutani et al. US 2007 /0064731 Al Mar. 22, 2007
Hori et al. US 2007 /0070938 Al Mar. 29, 2007
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hori and Bejerano. Final Act. 3-5.
2. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hori, Bejerano, and Razoumov. Final Act. 5-7.
3. Claims 5, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Hori, Bejerano, and Satt. Final Act. 7-8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-11 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We consider
Appellant's arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 5-11. We agree with Appellant's conclusions.
3
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 6-8 OVER HORI AND BEJERANO
Calculating the value of each communication band . .. based on
positional information of each ... radio terminal.
The Examiner finds Hori does not teach "a core network calculating
the value of each communication band that is assigned for each transmission
line between said radio base stations and said multiplex transmission
apparatus based on positional information of each of said radio terminals, as
claimed. However, these limitations are taught by Bejerano who provides an
overview of a network and mobile switching center (MSC) and teaches an
operator designs cells so as to optimize network resources by mitigating
updating and paging costs. Final Act. 3.
With respect to independent Claim 1, the Examiner finds the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed "value of each communication
band" is associated with the bandwidth of the communications link between
two devices. The Examiner finds "frequency spectrum" is an exemplary
definition and finds the Specification mentions the "capacity" of a
communications band. Therefore, the Examiner finds that "bandwidth
capacity" reads on the claimed "communications band." Ans. 4. In view of
this definition, the Examiner finds the paging and update costs taught by
Bejerano, have a "direct bearing on the network efficiency and bandwidth
capacity in the network between MSC and Cell administered by base
. " A 5 stat10n. ns. .
4
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
Appellant contends Bejerano fails to complete Hori because Bejerano
fails to teach a communications band that is assigned to each transmission
line between the multiplex transmission apparatus (or core network unit) and
the base radio station. App. Br. 6-7. Appellant contends an example of
communication bands is "frequency spectrum bands" used to transmit data
and which differ from bandwidth. App. Br. 7. The Examiner finds the
Specification does not embody "communication band" as "frequency
spectrum." Ans. 4.
We disagree with the Examiner because we find a person of ordinary
skill in the telecommunications arts would not understand the claim term
"communication band" to be taught by Bejerano's "paging and update
costs," as found by the Examiner. See Ans. 5. Rather, Appellant's
suggestion of "frequency spectrum bands" is the more likely to be the
accepted definition. With respect to data transmission, The IEEE Dictionary
defines "band" as the "[ r] ange of frequency between two defined limits. "3
Similarly, with respect to radio communications, "band" is defined as "[a]
range of electromagnetic-wave frequencies between definite limits, such as
that assigned to a particular type of radio service."4 Nothing in these
3 See Band (Data Transmission), IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of
IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition (2000) B.83.
4 Band (Communication). A range of electromagnetic-wave frequencies
between definite limits, such as that assigned to a particular type of radio
service, p.43, McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Electrical & Computer
Engineering (2003).
5
Appeal2014-006204
Application 12/920,918
industry definitions suggests Bejerano's "paging and update costs." Nor has
the Examiner found any disclosure in Appellant's Specification relating to
"paging and update costs."
Independent Claim 7 recites commensurate limitations relating to
"calculating the value of communication bands" and "assigning said
communication bands that are necessary for each transmission line." In
view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent Claims 1 and 7 and of dependent Claims 2, 6, and 8.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3-5 AND 9-11
Appellant contends neither Razoumov nor Satt teaches the contested
"communication bands" limitations missing from Hori and Bejerano. App.
Br. 10-11. The Examiner does not apply either Razoumov or Satt to the
"communication bands" limitations. See Ans. 3-8. In view of the
foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1-11.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. § 134 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6