Ex Parte Stjernholm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2017

13142698 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 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.
4015-7559 /P26628-US1 6624
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, HARUN UR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/142,698 06/29/2011
24112 7590 01/17/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Paul Stjernholm
01/17/2017 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 PAUL STJERNHOLM, MAGNUS HURD, FREDRIK PERSSON,
and LOTTA VOIGT
Appeal 2016-0001621
Application 13/142,698
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 26—52. App. Br. 3, 9—10. Claims 1—25
have been canceled. Claim App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget L M
Ericsson. App. Br. 2
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
adaptive admission control to modify the amount of capacity (404, 405) of a
guaranteed bit rate (GBR) capacity partition usable by both GBR bearers and
non-GBR bearers with GBR bearers having priority over non-GBR bearers.
Spec. 125, Fig. 4. The total available capacity may be partitioned into one
or more GBR partitions and a non-GBR partition that may be used by non-
GBR bearers but not GBR bearers. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 26 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
26. An adaptive admission control method, comprising:
storing an admission control threshold value for a
guaranteed bit rate (GBR) capacity partition, wherein the
admission control threshold value defines the amount of
capacity within the GBR capacity partition;
determining at least one of a first value representing the
percentage of GBR bearers in the GBR capacity partition that
do not meet a performance criteria and a second value
representing the percentage of GBR bearers in the GBR
capacity partition that meet the performance criteria; and
using at least one of the first value and the second value
in a process for modifying the admission control threshold
value;
wherein the full GBR capacity partition is usable by both
GBR bearers and non-GBR bearers, with the GBR bearers
having priority over the non-GBR bearers; and
2
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
wherein the GBR capacity partition is part of a larger
total capacity, the total capacity including a non-GBR capacity
partition that is not usable by GBR bearers.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Montes Linares
(“Montes”)
US 2005/0094560 Al May 5, 2005
Bahk et al.
(“Bahk”)
US 6,950,656 B1 Sept. 27, 2005
Haumont et al.
(“Haumont”)
US 7,688,731 B2 Mar. 30, 2010
Eriksson WO 2008/055936 Al May 15,2008
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner’s rejections:
Claims 26, 38, 39, 51, and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Montes and Eriksson. Ans. 2—10.
Claims 27—34 and 40-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Montes, Eriksson, and Bahk. Ans. 11—19.
Claims 35—37 and 48—50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Montes, Eriksson, Bahk, and Haumont. Ans. 19-25.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3—10, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.2
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 22, 2015) (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief
3
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Montes and Eriksson teaches or suggests wherein
the full GBR capacity partition is usable by both GBR bearers and non-GBR
bearers . . .; and wherein the GBR capacity partition is part of a larger total
capacity, the total capacity including a non-GBR capacity partition that is
not usable by GBR bearers, as recited in independent claim 26?
First, Appellants argue the safety margin in Montes does not teach the
full GBR capacity partition that is usable, as recited in claim 26. App.
Br. 4—5. According to Appellants, “‘usable’ . . . refers to use for carrying
signaling.” Id. at 5. In particular, Appellants assert Montes teaches that the
safety margin is not usable by any bearers. Id. (citing Montes Fig. 2).
Appellants contend Montes illustrates that the size of connection 2 labeled
“used capacity” remains the same at time tn to time tn+i. Id. Appellants
argue that the safety margin is modified, not connection 2. Reply Br. 2.
However, Appellants note Montes states “[t]he safety margin is defined as a
percentage of channel capacity that is used as additional used capacity in the
admission control algorithm calculations.” App. Br. 3, 5 (quoting Montes 1
23); Reply Br. 2. These arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner responds that the safety margin in Montes assigned to a
connection ensures guaranteed throughput for the connection. Ans. 26.
(filed September 25, 2015) (“Reply Br.”), the Answer (mailed August 10,
2015) (“Ans.”), and the original Specification (filed June 29, 2011)
(“Spec.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
(citing Montes H 34—35). The Examiner further finds Montes teaches
admission control increases the safety margin assigned to a connection when
the connection needs more capacity to achieve the negotiated (i.e.,
guaranteed) bit rate. Ans. 26 (citing Montes 125). We agree with the
Examiner because Montes teaches the available capacity is diverted from the
available capacity (CAP1) to the safety margin assigned to connection 2,
SM22. Ans. 26; Montes Fig. 2,125. We disagree with Appellants that the
safety margin contains capacity solely used by non-real time (nRT)
connections. App. Br. 8. Montes teaches that capacity assigned to CAP1 for
nRT connections is reassigned to the safety margin to increase the capacity
available to connection 2 to use so that it can achieve the guaranteed bit rate.
Montes Fig. 2,125. Contrary to Appellants’ assertion, this reassignment of
capacity in Montes teaches modifying the amount of capacity assigned to a
GBR capacity partition. App. Br. 5. Montes teaches connection 2 has more
capacity to use even if connection 2 itself is not changed. Montes Fig. 2,
125.
Second, Appellants contend that Eriksson does not teach a non-GBR
capacity partition that is not usable by GBR bearers, as recited in claim 26.
App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue Eriksson illustrates that the
actual load of GBR bearers 202 exceeds the load level 200 reserved for GBR
bearers. Id. at 6 (citing Eriksson Fig. 2). Appellants contend there are
periods of time depicted by Eriksson when the load level 200 is exceeded by
the GBR bearers. Reply Br. 4 (citing Eriksson Fig. 2). Appellants note
Eriksson teaches that the GBR bearers are policed once their actual load
level 202 exceeds the reserved load level 200. App. Br. 6—7. Appellants
5
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
assert that it is possible for GBR bearers to use more load than the reserved
load level. Id. at 7; Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, Appellants submit the
Examiner’s interpretation of a “capacity partition that is not usable by GBR
bearers” as a capacity partition that is not allowed to be used by GBR
bearers is erroneous. Id. at 6—7; Reply Br. 3^4.
These arguments are not persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’
assertion that “there is no ‘non-GBR capacity partition’ in Eriksson,” (App.
Br. 6), Eriksson expressly discloses that “the total amount of resources may
be divided into . . . the maximum capacity that all the GBR bearers can take
and the capacity for all other bearers” (Eriksson | 34). Thus, the “capacity
for all other bearers” is non-GBR capacity. We interpret Appellants’
Specification to describe that the capacity of a base station that is capable of
being used by GBR bearers and non-GBR bearers is partitioned into a
partition that may be used by both GBR bearers and non-GBR bearers and
another partition that may be used by non-GBR bearers but not GBR
bearers. See Spec. 125. It appears to us that there is nothing inherent in the
other partition that may not be used by GBR bearers that renders the GBR
bearers incapable of using this partition. See id. Therefore, consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, we conclude that a “capacity partition that is not
usable” can be broadly but reasonably construed as a capacity partition that
is not allowed to be used. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Eriksson teaches
that GBR bearers are not permitted to use the non-GBR capacity above the
dotted line 200/300. Ans. 31 (citing Eriksson Figs. 2, 4, || 28—35).
Eriksson teaches that, whenever the actual GBR bearer load 202 reaches or
exceeds the maximum capacity that all GBR bearers can take 200, rate
6
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
policing is done to prohibit GBR bearers from exceeding their guaranteed bit
rate (GBR). Ans. 31—32; Eriksson H 28, 34. We agree with the Examiner
that the rate policing prevents the load of the GBR bearers from being
sustained beyond the maximum capacity such that the capacity above level
200/300 teaches a non-GBR capacity partition that is not usable by GBR
bearers as recited in the claim. Id. at 33. For example, Eriksson discloses
that policing includes “dropping packets” and “buffering and delaying
packets,” which would prevent the GBR bearers from using capacity above
that allowed. See Eriksson, 13:12—13.
Third, Appellants dispute modifying Montes with Eriksson such that
the connection and safety margin would be usable by both GBR bearers and
non-GBR bearers. App. Br. 7. Appellants assert the purpose of safety
margin adjustments is to enable a connection to achieve a desired bitrate. Id.
at 7—8 (citing Montes 19). Appellants argue modifying the safety margin in
Montes to allow additional non-GBR connections defeats the goal of
achieving the desired bitrate and frustrates the purpose and the principle of
operation of the safety margin adjustments. Id. Appellants contend Montes
teaches that non-real time (nRT) connections use the capacity CAP 1 and
CAP2, but not connections 1, 2, 3. Id. at 8 (citing Montes Fig. 2).
Appellants dispute the sufficiency of the Examiner’s motivation to combine
Montes with Eriksson. Id. According to Appellants, Eriksson is concerned
with rate policing, which is not relevant to admission control taught in
Montes. Id.
The Examiner responds that the teachings in Eriksson of the
restriction of additional capacity to non-GBR bearers is consistent with the
7
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
teachings in Montes of safety margin adjustments. Ans. 34. The Examiner
finds non-GBR bearers in Eriksson may use part of the capacity that all GBR
bearers can take. Id. (citing Eriksson Figs. 2, 4). This portion of capacity is
represented in Figure 2 in Erikson as the area between maximum capacity
that all GBR bearers can take 200 and the actual GBR bearer load 202 when
it is less than the maximum capacity. Eriksson Fig. 2, regions 206.
However, according to the Examiner, when the actual GBR bearer load 202
exceeds the maximum capacity 200, non-GBR bearers may no longer take
any of the capacity that all GBR bearers can take. Id. (citing Eriksson Fig. 2,
regions 208). We agree with the Examiner that Eriksson’s teachings of
restricting capacity to non-GBR bearers is consistent with the intended
purpose and principle of operation of Montes. The Examiner finds Montes
teaches available nRT capacity CAP1 is used by non-GBR bearers. Id.
(citing Montes Fig. 2). Appellants do not dispute this finding. App. Br. 8.
According to the Examiner, when connection 2 does not require additional
safety margin capacity usable by GBR bearers, capacity is transferred from
the safety margin SM22 for connection 2 to nRT capacity CAP 1 increasing
from CAP2 to CAP1 and reducing SM22 to SM2. Ans. 34 (citing Montes
Fig. 2). As discussed above, this transfer of capacity simultaneously
changes its availability from GBR bearers allowed to use, to non-GBR
bearers allowed to use. See id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Montes and Eriksson teaches capacity available to
GBR bearers is also available to non-GBR bearers when the GBR bearer
load is low. Id. at 34—35. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner
finds Eriksson teaches admission control during rate policing when the GBR
8
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
bearer load exceeds the maximum capacity 200, 300 to refuse admission of
new GBR bearers. Id. at 35 (citing Eriksson Figs. 2, 4, || 33, 35).
Appellants have failed to rebut in the Reply Brief the Examiner’s findings
concerning the motivation to combine Montes and Eriksson. Id. at 35—36
(citing Eriksson || 1, 8). Accordingly, Appellants have failed to show error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claim 27, Appellants argue that
the dropped handoffs of Bahk do not teach the “first value,” as recited in
independent claim 26 as “representing the percentage of GBR bearers in the
GBR capacity partition that do not meet a performance criteria.” App. Br. 9.
In particular, Appellants contend Bahk does not teach GBR bearers. Id.
Appellants’ individual attack of the references does not establish non­
obviousness. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
Examiner finds Bahk teaches determining the number of dropped handoffs
and decreasing the admission control threshold if the number of dropped
handoffs is greater than a threshold. Ans. 37 (citing Bahk 8:60 — 9:10). The
Examiner explains the number of dropped handoffs is equivalent to the
number of dropped bearers associated with the calls. Id. We agree with the
Examiner because the bearers with dropped handoff calls, like discarded
packets and admission rejects, corresponds to bearers who do not meet
performance criteria. Id.', Spec, 14, 29. The Examiner relies on Montes
to teach monitoring the quality of GBR bearers. Id. Accordingly,
9
Appeal 2016-000162
Application 13/142,698
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 27.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability
arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 10)
as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 26 and 27 above,
claims 28—52 fall therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 26—52 as set forth
above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10