Ex Parte Van Der Velde et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 201411543253 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation