Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

13266384 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 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.
13/266,384 12/29/2011 Ki-Ho Lee q!27432 3815
23373 7590 06/29/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
KARIKARI, KWASI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KI-HO LEE, HEE-JUN LEE, JOONG-WAN PARK, and
JONG-HO PARK
Appeal 2015-000904
Application 13/266,384
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of Claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to femtocell technology, and in
particular, to a method for automatically setting an area code of a femto cell.
Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claim 1, which is illustrative of
the invention, reads as follows:
1 The Appeal Brief identifies KT Corporation as the real party in interest.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-000904
Application 13/266,384
1. A method for automatically setting an area code by a
femto access point (AP) located in a coverage area of a macro
cell, the method comprising:
receiving a broadcast signal of the macro cell;
extracting an area code of the macro cell from the received
broadcast signal; and
at the femto AP, setting the extracted area code as an area code
of the femto cell, wherein the extracted area code that is set as the area
code of the femto cell is the same as the area code of the macro cell.
Br. 10 (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Scheinert, et al. US 2005/0148368 A1 Jul. 7, 2005
Heo, et al. US 2005/0265301 Al Dec. 1, 2005
Lindqvist, et al. US 2010/0184421 Al Jul. 22, 2010
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Scheinert and Lindqvist. Final Act. 5—7.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Scheinert, Lindqvist, and Heo. Final Act. 7—8.
ANALYSIS
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. We agree with the Examiner that the
claims on appeal are obvious over the cited combination of references, and
we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the obviousness
2
Appeal 2015-000904
Application 13/266,384
rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in their Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We provide the following explanation to
highlight and address specific arguments.
Claim 1
Appellants argue the prior art does not teach the claim limitation “at
the femto AP [access point], setting the extracted area code as an area code
of the femto cell.” Br. 6—8. Appellants contend the Examiner relies solely
on Lindqvist for the disputed limitation. Id. According to Appellants, while
Lindqvist discloses a “femto remote base station” (femto AP) scanning a
network to “receive/obtain information about detected cells,” such
information received and set by the femto AP does not include “an extracted
area code of a macro cell” as required by the claim. Id. at 7.
The Examiner, however, relies on the combination of Lindqvist and
Scheinert as teaching the disputed limitation. Ans. 4; Final Act. 5—6.
Lindqvist and Scheinert are directed to wireless cellular communication
networks including femto and macro cells. Final Act. 5—6. As the Examiner
explains, Scheinert (not Lindqvist, as Appellants characterize the rejection)
discloses “extracting an area code of the macro cell from the received
broadcast signal” of a macro cell. Ans. 3 (emphasis added). Lindqvist, in
turn, discloses a femto AP (Lindqvist |47) that “sets” a location-based code,
i.e., an area code, such as Service Area Identifer (SAI) or Location Area
Identity (LAI). Ans. 4; Lindqvist || 15—17. The Examiner reasons
Appellants’ claim limitation is met by substituting Scheinert’s “extracted
3
Appeal 2015-000904
Application 13/266,384
area code” for the various codes disclosed in Lindqvist which are “set at the
femto AP.” Ans. 4; Final Act. 5—6. Thus, Appellants’ argument that the
femto AP in Lindqvist sets codes other than “the extracted area code [of a
macro cell]” does not persuade us of error. See, e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations
of references.”).
Appellants argue, alternatively, that if the Examiner is relying on
Lindqvist’s “femto service area identifier (SAI) selection entity FSSE 250”
as setting the extracted area code, then the Examiner errs because the FSSE
is not a “femto AP” (thus the extracted area code would not be set “at the
femto AP” as claimed). Id. at 6. As explained above, however, the
Examiner does not rely on the FSSE for this limitation. Ans. 4 (citing
Lindqvist 147, describing the “femto radio base station,” i.e. access point).
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Scheinert and Lindqvist.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not separately argue independent claim 6, which
contains limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1 and is subject to the
same rejection, and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, and 7—10. With respect to
dependent claim 3, Appellants argue the additional reference (Heo) does not
remedy the alleged deficiencies with respect to base claim 1.
Thus, having sustained the rejection of claim 1, we also sustain the
rejections of claims 2—10.
4
Appeal 2015-000904
Application 13/266,384
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Scheinert and Lindqvist is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Scheinert, Lindqvist, and Heo is AFFIRMED.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
5