Ex Parte Williams et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

10679870 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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.
10/679,870 10/06/2003 Patrick Williams 5150-77600 3836
7590 09/17/2012
Jeffrey C. Hood
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767
EXAMINER
YIGDALL, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 RASHID A. ATTAR, BIBHU P. MOHANTY,
JACK M. HOLTZMAN, and JELENA DAMNJANOVIC
____________________

Appeal 2010-0046771
Application 10/728,035
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)

Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-46. Claim 17 has been withdrawn from
consideration. (App. Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented an apparatus for reducing the load of a base
station in a wireless communication network. In particular, upon detecting
that certain parameters of a base station have crossed a predetermined
threshold, one of a plurality of control mechanisms is selected based on the
types and degree of the overload to thereby reduce the load of the base
station. (Specification ¶¶ [0011], [0012].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. An apparatus for communications, comprising:

means for communicating, form a base station, with a
plurality of communication devices, the communications
placing a load on the base station;

means for monitoring a plurality of parameters each
relating to the load on the base station;

means for detecting an overload as a result of one of the
parameters crossing a threshold; and

means for implementing a plurality of control
mechanisms to reduce the load on the base station, wherein the
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

3
control mechanism used to reduce the load on the base station is
selected based on a plurality of types and a degree of the
overload on the base station; and wherein each type is
associated with at least one of the parameters.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Andersson US 5,697,054 Dec. 9, 1997
Lin US 5,917,806 Jun. 29,1999
Katoh US 5,949,757 Sep. 7, 1999
Choi US 6,405,045 B1 Jun. 11, 2002
Gehi US 6,134,216 Oct. 17, 2000
Padovani US 6,442,398 B1 Aug. 27, 2002
Kim US 6,456,850 B1 Sep. 24, 2002
Volftsun US 6,707,792 B1 Mar. 16, 2004
Gandhi US 6,944,449 B1 Sep. 13, 2005
Bender US 2002/0155852 A1 Oct. 24, 2002
Jang US 2002/0173316 A1 Nov. 21, 2002
Laakso US 2003/0003921 A1 Jan. 2, 2003
Lee US 2003/0125068 A1 Jul. 3, 2003
Lee US 2004/0165529 A1 Aug. 26, 2004

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 11, 13, 14, 21, 29, 31, 33 39, 40, 43, and 44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Bender, and Kim.
Claims 6 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Ghandi, and Gehi.
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

4
Claim 32 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Andersson.
Claim 34 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Andersson, and Jang.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Andersson, Gandhi, and Laakso.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee,
Gandhi, Andersson, Laakso, and Padovani.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Padovani.
Claims 2, 3, 22, and 45-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Gandhi.
Claims 4, 5, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Gandhi, Lee ‘068.
Claims 7-9 and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Laakso.
Claims 12 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Volftsun.
Claims 15 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Gandhi, and Laakso.
Claims 16 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Gandhi, Laakso, and Padovani.
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

5
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Bender.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, Bender, Kim, and Katoh.
Claims 41 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Choi in view of Lee, and Lin.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 6-16.
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Choi and Lee teaches or suggests selecting
one of a plurality of control mechanisms to reduce the load on a base station
based on the types and the degree of the overload thereon, as recited claim
1?
Appellants argue that Choi’s disclosure of rejecting various types of
calls (incoming/outgoing/handoff) when an overload condition occurs does
not teach selecting a mechanism for reducing the load of a base station based
on the types of overload due to the lack of sufficient power, a rise of thermal
condition. (App. Br. 8.) Further, Appellants argue that while Lee teaches
selecting a reduction mechanism based on the degree of the overload, it does
not teach selecting such mechanism based on the types of overload. (Id. 8-9.)
In response, the Examiner finds that because the claim does not
particularly specify which types of overload upon which the reduction
mechanism selection can be based, Choi’s disclosure of rejecting various
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

6
types of calls when an overload condition occurs, taken in combination with
Lee’s disclosure teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 49-51.)
On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s ultimate
conclusion of obviousness. We note at the outset, as set forth above, that
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Lee’s disclosure
teaches selecting a reduction mechanism based on the degree of overload of
a base station. However, Appellants dispute that neither Choi nor Lee
teaches such selection of the reduction mechanism based on the types of
overload. We do not agree with Appellants. Choi discloses a detecting unit,
whereupon detecting that a monitored value at a base station exceeds a
predetermined threshold, determines that an overload exists and thereby
allows a process unit to process the overload after selecting between a call
allocation operation and a call allocation rejection operation. (Col. 3, ll. 22-
35.) If the call allocation rejection operation is selected, threshold rejection
points stored in the database for incoming calls, outgoing call, and handoff
calls are utilized to help identify which types of calls to reject upon
determining that an overload exists. (Col. 3, l. 38- col. 4, l. 15.) We therefore
find that Choi’s disclosure of determining which type of threshold point has
been exceeded to thereby reject a call corresponding thereto teaches or at
least suggests that the detecting unit does select an overload reduction
mechanism based on a detected type of call overload from a plurality of call
types. Consequently, we are satisfied that Choi and Lee disclose prior art
elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in an
overload unit for selecting an overload reduction mechanism based on the
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

7
degree and the types of overload. Thus, Appellants’ argument that there is
insufficient motivation for combining the references is unpersuasive. (App.
Br. 11.)
Further, in considering the general form of Appellants’ arguments in
the principal Brief, Appellants’ arguments appear to have attacked the
individual teachings of Choi and Lee separately, as opposed to the combined
disclosures proffered by the Examiner. We note that one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the respective references relied on by the
Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what the combination
teaches or suggests when considered as a whole. We find nonetheless that
the cumulative weight and the totality of the evidence on this record favor
the Examiner’s position that the combined disclosures of Choi and Lee
would have taught or suggested the disputed limitations. It follows that
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the
proffered combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
Because claims 21, 22, 33, and 39 are argued together with claim 1,
(App. Br. 16), claims 21, 22, 33, and 39 fall for the reasons set forth in our
discussion of claim 1 above. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii).
Regarding claims 2-16, 18-20, 23-32, 34-38, and 40-46, Appellants
reiterate the same arguments presented for claim 1. (App. Br. 9-15.) As
discussed above, we find those arguments unpersuasive. Further, Appellants
argue that none of the secondary references cures the deficiencies of the
Appeal 2010-004677
Application 10/728,035

8
Choi and Lee combination. (Id.) We find no such deficiencies in proposed
combination for the cited references to remedy. Additionally, Appellants
argue that the proposed combinations of references do not teach the further
limitations of the cited claims. (Id.) We find that the Examiner has directly
rebutted such arguments by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ans. 52-57.)
As such, we endorse the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness as set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by
reference. It therefore follows that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-16, 18-20, 23-32, 34-38, and 40-46.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 and 18-46 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc