Ex Parte Siomina et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13979892 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
4015-8614/P36382-US1 6613
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/979,892 07/16/2013
24112 7590 03/21/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Iana Siomina
03/21/2017 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 IANA SIOMINA and MUHAMMAD KAZMI
Appeal 2016-008214
Application 13/979,892
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-008214
Application 13/979,892
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 21 42. Claim 43 is pending and is not rejected. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
21. A method, implemented by a network node, for
controlling measurements of cells performed by a wireless
device, the method characterized by:
identifying, at the network node, for each of a plurality of
neighbor cells, a measurement bandwidth over which the
wireless device is to perform one or more measurements
of that cell;
at the network node, selectively initiating handover of the
wireless device from a serving cell to one of the neighbor
cells depending on how many of those neighbor cells
have a measurement bandwidth larger than that of a
serving cell.
Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 21—23, 26—29, 33, 34, and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nee et al. (US 7,477,659 Bl,
issued Jan. 13,2009)7
1 As to claims 22, 23, 26—29, 33, 34, and 41, our decision as to claim 21 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
2
Appeal 2016-008214
Application 13/979,892
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 25, 30-32, 35—40, and 42 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Nee in various combinations
with additional references.2
Appellants ’ Contentions3
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because:
Nee fails to disclose anything about the size of a measurement
bandwidth of a neighbor cell compared to the size of the
measurement bandwidth of a serving cell.
App. Br. 9.
Even if it is determined that each cell has sufficient available
bandwidth for the required session, this fails to indicate anything
about the size of the bandwidth capacity of the serving cell
compared to the size of the bandwidth capacity of the neighbor
cell, other than the mere fact that both cells have the bandwidth
required for the session. This indicates nothing about whether
the bandwidth capacity of the neighbor cell is larger than that of
the serving cell.
App. Br. 9-10.
Nee fails to teach an amount of neighbor cells that have a
measurement bandwidth larger than the serving cell. If in fact a
given mobile terminal is handed over to one of the cells
neighboring the initial cell, after the session has begun, Nee fails
to teach that this handover is initiated depending on any amount
of neighbor cells. Certainly this handover is not initiated
2 As to claims 24, 25, 30—32, 35—40, and 42, our decision as to claim 21 is
determinative. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal 2016-008214
Application 13/979,892
depending on how many neighbor cells have a measurement
bandwidth larger than that of a serving cell.
App. Br. 10.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 21 as being anticipated
because Nee fails to disclose the argued limitation?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we agree with Appellants that
Nee fails to teach or suggest selectively initiating handover from a serving
cell to one of the neighbor cells depending on how many of those neighbor
cells have a measurement bandwidth larger than that of the serving cell.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 21—23, 26—29, 33, 34, and 41 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 24, 25, 30-32, 35—40, and 42 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 21—42 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
4
Appeal 2016-008214
Application 13/979,892
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 21—42 are reversed.
REVERSED
5