Ex Parte Stadelmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2016

12534145 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/534,145 08/02/2009
45457 7590 11/03/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel
c/o CPA Global
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Uwe Stadelmann
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.
5884.030US 1 9074
EXAMINER
SHAHEED, KHALID W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UWE ST ADELMANN, PEI LUO,
MICHAEL NEUWERT, and MICHAEL ESCH
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
Technology Center 2600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22. No other claims are pending. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Appellants' Specification states that in the Global System for Mobile
Communications, mobile stations regularly receive messages containing
Broadcast Control channel (BCCH) frequencies in the form of a list of
available BCCH channel frequencies, called a BCCH Allocation list ("BA
list"). Spec. i-fi-f l-2. Conventionally, each time a mobile station receives a
BA list, the mobile station replaces any and all BCCH channel frequencies
stored in the mobile station with the BCCH channel frequencies received in
the most recent BA list. Spec. i1 3.
Instead of replacing all BCCH channel frequencies, Appellants'
invention relates to retaining and reusing BCCH channel frequencies stored
in the mobile device when a BCCH channel frequency in the most recent BA
list matches a BCCH channel frequency already stored in the mobile station.
See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-128, 30. Claims 1, 9, 15, and 20, reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
storing in storage a first frequency associated with a first
cell;
receiving a second frequency associated with a second
cell;
determining that one or more frequencies associated with
a list of frequencies is not stored in the storage; and
maintaining the first frequency associated with the first
cell in the storage after receiving the second frequency associated
with the second cell, the maintaining act executed based on the
determining that one or more frequencies associated with a list
of frequencies is not stored in the storage.
9. A method, comprising:
receiving a first Broadcast Control Channel (BCCH) Allocation
list (BA-list) including at least one frequency associated with a cell;
2
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
resolving that the BA-list is incomplete;
storing in storage the at least one frequency associated with the
cell in a list allocated to store frequencies; and
maintaining any other frequencies in the list after the storing of
the at least one frequency associated with the cell in the list.
15. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor coupled to a storage, the processor enabled to
execute computer-executable instructions stored in the storage,
the computer-executable instructions including:
a radio resource layer (RR layer) module to receive at
least one frequency associated with a cell and generate a flag to
be associated with the at least one frequency associated with the
cell; and
a layer module to receive the at least one frequency
associated with the cell and the flag associated with the at least
one frequency.
20. A method, comprising:
receiving from a first layer module being associated with
computer executable instructions stored in a storage
measurement information related to a first cell and second cell;
and
selecting measurement information from the
measurement information related to a first cell and second cell
to send to a network entity, the selected measurement
information based on a current Broadcast Control Channel
(BCCH) Allocation list (BA-list).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 15-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Noerpel et al. (US 2003/0045241 Al; Mar. 6, 2003).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view ofBabovic (US 2005/0239471 Al; Oct. 27,
2005) and Doi (US 6,332,078 Bl; Dec. 18, 2001).
3
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
Claims 2, 5-7, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable in view of Babovic, Doi, and Hurst (US 2006/0240829
Al; Oct. 26, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Babovic and Doi does not
teach or suggest the "determining" limitation of claim 1. Br. 9. The
Examiner cites Doi for that limitation. Final Act. 10-11. Specifically, the
Examiner cites Doi's disclosures regarding a mobile device's initial "scan
list" that includes all possible frequencies and finds Doi teaches determining
whether a channel frequency is stored in memory as part of its channel-
selection process. Final Act. 11; Ans. 3 (paraphrasing Doi as disclosing "[i]f
it is determined that a channel frequency is not stored in list memory then it
may be deleted") (citing Doi col. 10, 11. 6-12).
Appellants argue Doi teaches a process through which a mobile
device selects a channel frequency for transmission and deletes from
memory each channel that is not selected. Br. 9-10 (citing Doi Figs. 9, 10,
col. 10, 11. 6-12). According to Appellants, Doi's process does not include
or require determining that one or more frequencies is not stored in storage,
as claimed-Doi merely teaches deleting a channel frequency each time it is
not selected. Br. 10-11.
Having reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments and the evidence of record, we find the Examiner's rejection does
not adequately explain how or why a person of ordinary skill would combine
the channel selection and deletion process taught in Doi with the teachings
of Babovic to arrive at the invention of claim 1. The cited portion of Doi
4
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
describes sequentially deleting channel frequencies for which a "signal
intensity detection result" is not higher than a certain threshold until,
"[ e ]ventually, the channel frequencies stored in the list memory 65 are
deleted without setting the channel." Doi col. 10, 11. 8-10; cf Doi col. 8, 11.
6-9 ("channel frequencies of which the signal intensity detection results are
50 [dB µm] or higher are selected, and the channel frequencies and the
signal intensities are transferred to the list memory"). In that case, "if it is
determined" that no channel frequencies exist in the list memory (e.g., no
channel frequencies were selected and all channel frequencies were deleted),
the process can be repeated to compare a signal intensity detection result
against a lower threshold. Doi col. 10, 11. 10-62. In other words, the cited
portions of Doi only teach "determining" that a channel frequency is not
stored in a list memory in the context of determining that all of the channel
frequencies have been deleted. Without further evidence or explanation, we
do not agree with the Examiner that Doi teaches or suggests the determining
limitation of claim 1, and we therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim
1, nor the rejections of 2-8, which depend from claim 1.
Claim 9
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Babovic teaches
"resolving that the BA-list is incomplete," as recited in claim 9. Br. 9.
Appellants acknowledge Babovic teaches a procedure to add a BCCH to a
mobile station's neighbor cell list, but Appellants argue Babovic does not
disclose that the BSS first determines (i.e., resolves) that the list does not
already include the frequency of the BCCH before it is sent. Br. 11-12.
According to Appellants, it is possible in the disclosure of Babovic that the
frequency of the BCCH is already in the mobile station's cell list. Br. 12.
5
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Babovic' s disclosures
regarding "updating" a mobile station's neighbor cell list ("Active BA-list")
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. See Final Act. 12-13 (citing
Babovic Fig. 4, i-fi-f 15, 18); Ans. 4--5. Babovic's Figure 4 and related
descriptions describe a handover process that includes adding the BCCH of a
mobile station's serving cell to the mobile station's neighbor cell list when
the mobile station reaches a border between two neighboring cells. Babovic
i-fi-f 14--15, 18. Babovic teaches that, when a mobile station reaches a planned
border, a base station system sends instructions to the mobile station to add
the frequency of the serving cell BCCH to the mobile station's neighbor cell
list, causing the mobile station to measure signal strengths of the active
traffic channel, the serving cell BCCH, and the neighboring BCCHs.
Babovic i-fi-f 15, 18.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, considering the plain language of
claim 9 read in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill would understand Babovic' s
disclosures of "adding" the service cell BCCH to the neighbor cell list to
"update" the neighbor cell list to teach or suggest resolving that the BA list
(the neighbor cell list) is incomplete as claimed. See Spec. i-fi-121-24
(describing messaging sent to a mobile station instructing it to store
frequencies from a BA-list). Appellants identify no evidence of record that
would require an interpretation of the "resolving" limitation of claim 9 to
exclude Babovic' s teachings. Cf Br. 5 (identifying Spec. i121 as written
description support for the resolving step). Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 9, as well as dependent claims 10, 11, 12, and
14, which depended from claim 9 and are not argued separately.
6
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and further recites "receiving a
network message that indicates that the BA-list is complete." The Examiner
cites Babovic' s disclosures of messages sent to a mobile station instructing it
to stop measuring signal strength (Final Act. 14 (citing Babovic i-f 15) ), but
we agree with Appellants that Babovic discloses that such instructions are
sent following expiration of a predefined period of time, not with an
indication that the BA-list is complete (see Br. 12). Indeed, Babovic
provides that a mobile station will measure signal strength until the time
period expires and it receives instructions to stop, but we do not agree with
the Examiner that the cited disclosures teach or suggest receipt of a message
indicating that the BA list is complete. See Babovic i-f 15 ("Collection of the
signal strength measurements continues until the predefined time period
expires at step 34 . ... Thereafter, in step 34, the BSS instructs all active
MSs to stop measuring signal strength of the service cell BCCH. The
collection of measurements is then complete."). Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
Claim 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Noerpel anticipates
claim 15. Specifically, Appellants argue Noerpel fails to disclose "a radio
resource layer (RR layer) module to receive at least one frequency
associated with a cell and generate a flag to be associated with the at least
one frequency associated with the cell," and/or "a layer module to receive
the at least one frequency associated with the cell and the flag associated
with the at least one frequency," as required by claim 15. Br. 14.
7
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
The Examiner cites Noerpel's disclosures relating to a "cell bar access
flag" as disclosures of those limitations (Final Act. 6-7 (citing Noerpel i-fi-1
30, 39, 75); Ans. 5---6 (citing Noerpel i-fi-130, 39, 71, 73-75)), but we agree
with Appellants that Noerpel does not disclose a RR-layer module that
generates the flag. N oerpel states that the RR layer of the access terminal
receives system information that includes a cell bar access flag transmitted
in the A-BCCH from a gateway (Noerpel Fig. 6, i171), but we do not agree
with the Examiner that Noerpel discloses an RR layer that generates a cell
bar access flag (cf Ans. 6 ("As disclosed above and [c]ited by Noerpel in
[0075], the BCCH signal may include a Cell Bar Flag."). Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 15,
nor the rejections of dependent claims 16-19, which depend from claim 15.
Claim 20
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Noerpel anticipates
claim 20. Br. 14--15. Specifically, Appellants contend Noerpel fails to
disclose "selecting measurement information from the measurement
information related to a first cell and second cell to send to a network entity,
the selected measurement information based on a current Broadcast Control
Channel (BCCH) Allocation list (BA-list)," as claimed. Br. 14. (Emphasis
omitted).
The Examiner finds Noerpel discloses the disputed limitation with its
cell selection process in which cells with adequate power are identified.
Ans. 7 (citing Noerpel i-fi-139--40). Appellants argue, and we agree, Noerpel
discloses that its RR layer only identifies cells that have adequate power and
does not send measurement information to a network entity based on a
current BA list, as claimed. Br. 14--15. Noerpel states that it identifies all
8
Appeal2015-005380
Application 12/534,145
cells that have adequate power and generates an available BCCH list and a
list of available public land mobile networks, but the Examiner has not
shown that Noerpel discloses sending measurement information to a network
entity as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 20, nor the rejections of dependent claims 21 and 22, which depend
from claim 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
9-12 and 14. We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8, 13, and
15-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9