Ex Parte Van Der Velde et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2014

11543253 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2014)

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.
11/543,253 10/05/2006 Himke Van Der Velde 52534 5947
1609 7590 06/16/2014
ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P.
1300 19TH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON,, DC 20036
EXAMINER
GAO, JING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/16/2014 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 HIMKE VAN DER VELDE,
GERT JAN VAN LIESHOUT, and KYEONG-IN JEONG
____________________

Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 8, and 23-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 2, 4-7, and 9-22 have been canceled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a mobile
communications cell-changing procedure (Abstract).

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for receiving packet data in a mobile
communication system, the method comprising the steps of:

sending first measurement information indicating an addition of
a cell to an active set based on a first level to a UMTS
Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN);

receiving an active set update information including pre-
configuration information for updating the active set and pre-
configuring the cell based on the received active set update
information from the UTRAN;

sending second measurement information indicating a change
of a serving cell to one of the active set cells based on a second
level to the UTRAN; and

monitoring a handover command from the one of the active set
cells using a limited control channel configuration in parallel
Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

3
with receiving scheduling information from a source cell
serving the UE using a complete control channel configuration,

wherein the limited control channel configuration uses less
control channel resources than the complete control channel
configuration.

REFERENCES
Lucent Technologies, Proposal for Supporting Real Time Services Over
HSDPA, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 Meeting #46bis, Apr. 4-8, 2005, Beijing, China,
6 pages.

Siemens, Fast Cell Switching for HSDPA, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 #46bis, R2-
050801, Apr. 14-18, 2005, Beijing, China, 5 pages.

Qualcomm, Enhanced HSDPA Re-Pointing Scheme, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2
Meeting #48, R2-051969, Aug. 29–Sep. 2, 2005, London, United Kingdom,
pp. 1-8.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
(1) Claims 1, 8, and 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Qualcomm and Siemens (Ans. 4-7).
(2) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Qualcomm, Siemens, and Lucent (Ans. 7).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 8, 23, and 24
Appellants argue their invention is not obvious over Qualcomm and
Siemens because: (1) no motivation exists for combining the references; (2)
the proposed combination would render Qualcomm unsatisfactory for its
Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

4
intended purpose; (3) neither Qualcomm nor Siemens teaches or suggests a
“handover command”; and (4) neither Qualcomm nor Siemens teaches or
suggests limited control channel configuration of a target cell (App. Br. 8-
12).
Issue 1a: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the
teachings of Qualcomm and Siemens?
Issue 1b: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Qualcomm and Siemens teaches or suggests the invention as recited in
independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8,
23, and 24?

ANALYSIS
Appellants’ argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
been motivated to combine the teachings of Qualcomm with the teachings of
Siemens is not persuasive. According to Appellants, the user equipment
(UE) in Siemens does not determine which cell becomes the target cell and
monitors less than a full set of High Speed-Shared Control Channel (HS-
SCCH) channels while also monitoring a full set of HS-SCCH channels of
the source cell in contrast to the UE of Qualcomm which determines the
target cell (Reply Br. 4-5).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion. We agree with the
Examiner that Appellants’ arguments appear based on the bodily
incorporation of the teachings of Siemens into those of Qualcomm (Ans. 8).
Appellants’ next argument is the alleged combination renders
Qualcomm unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br.
Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

5
5-6). Again, we are not persuaded. Appellants argue the combination of
Qualcomm’s and Siemens’ teachings would change
how the handover occurs in Qualcomm, which monitors a full
set of channels and determines the target cell for handover, to
the handover in Siemens, which monitors channels of many
cells with less than a full active set to receive an indication as to
which target cell to handover to.
(Reply Br. 5). Appellants appear to be arguing bodily incorporation of the
teachings of Siemens into those of Qualcomm while the Examiner is relying
on specific teachings of Qualcomm and Siemens (Ans. 8-9).
Appellants further argue neither Qualcomm nor Siemens teaches or
suggests a handover command (App. Br. 11-12). Specifically, Appellants
contend the “handover command” as recited allows a UE to simply perform
a handover rather than having to investigate if the handover should be
performed based on the scheduling information (App. Br. 11). Appellants
are arguing limitations not recited in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 recites
“monitoring a handover command.” We are not persuaded the Examiner’s
findings are in error (Ans. 10; see App. Br. 3; Spec. ¶ [0047]; Fig. 6A).
Appellants’ fourth argument is also not persuasive (App. Br. 12). We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10). Further, even if we were to agree with
Appellants’ arguments, Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the
claim. Specifically, the claim language does not preclude monitoring of all
or some of the active set cells.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 and independent claims 8, 23, and 24, not separately
argued, over the combination of Qualcomm and Siemens.

Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

6
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 25-28
Appellants argue their invention is not obvious over Qualcomm and
Siemens because both references describe the UE receives scheduling
information to determine a handover (App. Br. 12-13).
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Qualcomm and Siemens teaches or suggests the invention as recited in
claims 25-28?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings (Ans. 10-11). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25-28.

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 3
Appellants argue their invention is not obvious over Qualcomm,
Siemens, and Lucent because Lucent does not cure the deficiencies of
Qualcomm and Siemens with respect to claim 1 (App. Br.13). As set forth
in Issue 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the
combination of Qualcomm and Siemens. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ argument and therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 3 over Qualcomm, Siemens, and Lucent.
Appeal 2011-010320
Application 11/543,253

7
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 23-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Qualcomm and Siemens is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Qualcomm, Siemens, and Lucent is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

msc