Ilkka Keskitalo et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 20, 20212020005865 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2021) 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. 13/982,918 08/30/2013 Ilkka Keskitalo 49700-075N01US/ NC74942 1063 12358 7590 12/20/2021 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 EXAMINER GONZALEZ, AMANCIO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2021 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ILKKA KESKITALO, JARKKO KOSKELA, and JUSSI-PEKKA KOSKINEN Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 29–48, which constitute all the claims 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed December 3, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief filed April 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Final Office Action mailed March 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”) and Answer mailed February 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed July 31, 2013 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 2 pending in this Application. See Final Act. 1–2. Claims 1–28 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter of the present Application pertains to “providing an improved handover operation” in a wireless communications network. Spec. 1:1–7. Appellant’s Specification purports to describe and claim embodiments that relate to “extension of a handover command to include a global cell identifier[].” Id. at 4:10–11. In an embodiment, the global cell identifier corresponding to a target cell may be provided to the mobile terminal in the handover command issued by a source cell. Id. at 4:15–16. “By including the global cell identifier of a target cell in a handover command . . . the global cell identifier may be utilized to ensure that Radio Link Failures and/or handover failures are properly reported to a network.” Id. at 4:16–19. Claims 29, 34, 41, 42, 45, and 48 are independent. Claim 29, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is representative: 29. A method comprising: receiving, at a user equipment, a handover command message comprising a radio resource control connection reconfiguration message, the handover command message received from a source cell before an attempt by the user equipment to complete a handover to a target cell, wherein the handover command message includes a cell global identifier of the target cell, wherein the handover command message indicates a decision to handover the user equipment from the source cell to the target cell; Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 3 generating, at the user equipment, at least one radio link failure report, the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell; and providing, by the user equipment, the at least one generated radio link failure report. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner relies on the following references: Designation3 Reference Date Sammour US 2009/0185524 Al July 23, 2009 Hapsari US 2011/0026486 Al Feb. 3, 2011 Wang US 2011/0300896 Al Dec. 8, 2011 AAPA Applicant Admitted Prior Art Claims 29, 30, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA and Hapsari. Final Act. 3. Claims 31, 32, 36, 37, 43, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of AAPA, Hapsari, and Wang. Final Act. 6. Claims 33, 38–40, 44, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of AAPA, Hapsari, Wang, and Sammour. Final Act. 10. 3 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 4 ANALYSIS Background and Overview of the Disclosures in the Specification The Background section of Appellant’s Specification describes that the wireless cellular network provides continuity of service to the traveling mobile users “by enabling a user’s mobile terminal to be handed over between different serving stations within corresponding different cells or service areas.” Spec. 1:25–31. During a handover “a mobile terminal is handed over from a source cell to a target cell.” Id. at 2:36–37. According to the Specification, at present, after a mobile terminal is handed over from a source cell to a target cell, the mobile terminal typically decodes system parameters from the target cell to obtain . . . the cell global identity (GCI) and other relevant information about the target cell in order to determine the location of the target cell. Id. at 2:36–39 (emphases added). The Background section of the Specification also describes that the mobile terminal may generate a Radio Link Failure (RLF) reports which may include information indicating that a connection between a mobile terminal and a network is lost. Id. at 2:21–25. The Background section further describes that “in an E-UTRAN, the RLF report typically includes information specifying the location where the RLF occurred.”4 Id. at 2:31– 32. When a Radio Link Failure occurs during a handover, however, “the mobile terminal may be unable to identify the cell global identity of the target cell,” which is typically obtained by decoding system parameters transmitted by the target cell, and “the mobile terminal may be unable to 4 According to the Specification, the E-UTRAN is “also known as Long Term Evolution (LTE) or 3.9G.” Spec. 1:19–20. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 5 generate the RLF report to be sent to the target cell since the mobile terminal may not know the location where the RLF occurred.” Id. at 3:1–7. The Specification purports to provide a solution to the described problem as follows: By including the global cell identifier of a target cell in a handover command, the problems caused by the delay in decoding the cell identi[t]ies may be solved. In this regard, the global cell identifier may be utilized to ensure that Radio Link Failures and/or handover failures are properly reported to a network. Id. at 4:16–19 (emphasis added). By receiving and detecting the global cell identifier in the handover command message, the mobile terminal may not need to decode system information transmitted from the target cell in order to determine the global cell identifier of the target cell. Id. at 19:24–26. Instead, the mobile terminal may determine the identity and location of the target cell from the global cell identifier provided to the mobile terminal by a source cell in the handover command message. Id. at 19:26–30. The Specification further describes that the mobile terminal may “more efficiently and reliably generate RLF reports in instances in which an RLF may occur after a handover attempt” since the mobile terminal may determine the identity and location of the target cell from the global cell identifier provided to the mobile terminal from the source cell in the handover command message. Id. at 19:27–30. Discussion We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 4–6) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 3– 13; Ans. 3–9). For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 6 Examiner error in the rejection of the pending claims, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections. Appellant argues the rejection of independent claims 29, 34, 41, 42, 45, and 48 collectively with regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal Br. 11–14. Appellant does not separately argue patentability for the dependent claims. Id. at 14–15. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 29–48 based on claim 29 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–4) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–9). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis. In rejecting claim 29 over the combination of AAPA and Hapsari, the Examiner finds AAPA teaches or suggests most limitations of the claim including, “receiving, at a user equipment, a handover command message . . . from a source cell” and “generating, at the user equipment, at least one radio link failure report, the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell.” Final Act. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14). The Examiner finds AAPA does not disclose the limitation reciting “wherein the handover command message includes a cell global identifier of the target cell,” for which the Examiner further relies on Hapsari. Id. at 4 (citing Hapsari ¶¶ 40–43, 54). The Examiner finds that by including Hapsari’s cell global identifier of the target cell in the handover command of AAPA, the combination of AAPA and Hapsari teaches the requirement that “the received cell global identifier of the target cell” Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 7 included in “the at least one radio link failure report” is received from a source cell in a handover command. Id. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hapsari’s cell global identifier of the target cell received in a handover command message with the handover command of AAPA as a way of solving “the problems of AAPA, paragraph 0013.” Id. According to the Examiner, using Hapsari’s cell global identifier of the target cell in the handover command of AAPA would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another. Id. (citing MPEP § 2143). The Examiner also explains that such a combination would have been obvious to try because Hapsari discloses it as one of a few alternatives, including “the approach of the AAPA.” Id. (citing Hapsari ¶¶ 43–46, 54– 56). Appellant makes several arguments to contend the Examiner erred.5 First, Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred by relying on the Background section of the Specification as prior art in rejecting the claims. Appeal Br. 11, 12; Reply Br. 4. Second, Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to articulate sufficient motivation to combine Hapsari and the Specification’s Background section. Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 5–6. Third, Appellant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches “generating . . . the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell,” as recited in claim 29. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4–5. Lastly, Appellant argues that Hapsari’s “global cell ID” is not the “cell 5 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 8 global identifier” recited in claim 29. Appeal Br. 13–14. We address each of Appellant’s arguments in turn below. The Specification’s Background section As Prior Art An applicant’s statement in the specification that something is prior art may be used as evidence of obviousness under § 103. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570–71 (CCPA 1975). Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred by relying on the Specification’s Background section as prior art because “Applicants have never characterized the Background section as prior art.” Appeal Br. 11, 12; Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues that the rejection of claim 29 should be overturned because “Applicants’ Background section should be disqualified as prior art.” Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, the Examiner did not rely on the entire Background section as prior art. Instead, in rejecting claim 29, the Examiner relied on specific statements in the Background section as Applicant Admitted Prior Art disclosing specific limitations of claim 29. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14); Ans. 6–8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 8, 14). Second, it is not necessary that the exact words “prior art” are used verbatim for an applicant’s statement to constitute an admission of prior art. See In re Lopresti, 333 F.2d 932, 934 (CCPA 1964) (holding that statements made in the appellants’ appeal brief constituted an admission that the invention of another was prior art although no words “prior art” were used by appellants); see also Ex parte Shirley, No. 2009-2352, 2009 WL 1359080, at *11 (BPAI May 14, 2009) (non-precedential) (declining to “subscribe to a simplistic and formalistic bright-line rule where a statement in the Specification or elsewhere on the record is treated as a prior-art admission by an Applicant if, and only if, the Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 9 specific words ‘prior art’ are expressly used verbatim” because “[i]f we were to adopt such a formalist bright-line rule, patent practitioners would be able to avoid the legal consequences of making a prior-art admission by merely substituting for the term ‘prior art,’ euphemisms like ‘related art,’ ‘background art,’ ‘conventional art,’ ‘typical art,’ and the like”). Here, paragraph 9 of the Specification cited by the Examiner states as follows: In order to perform RLF reporting, a mobile terminal typically stores relevant measurement results in an instance in which the mobile terminal encounters Radio Link Failure. In this regard, a mobile terminal may store cell measurement results as well as cell identifications (IDs) at the time that the RLF occurred. For example, in an E-UTRAN, the RLF report typically includes information specifying the location where the RLF occurred. In this regard, the cell identifications may correspond to location information identifying where the RLF occurred. However, there may be a problem determining the location in which a RLF occurred in instances in which a mobile terminal is handed over from a source cell to a target cell. Spec. 2:27–35 (emphases added).6 In addition, paragraphs 13 and 14 relied upon by the Examiner state Prior to the RPLMN requesting the logged MDT measurements from the mobile terminal, the source/serving cell may hand over the mobile terminal to a target cell. As such, the mobile terminal may desire to make the logged MDT measurements available to a PLMN of the target cell since the RPLMN did not request the logged MDT measurements, for example. However, in order to verify the PLMN of the target cell, the mobile terminal typically needs to know the PLMN 6 Similar to paragraph 9, paragraph 8 of the Specification describes a mobile terminal generating a RLF report, which may include information indicating that a connection between a mobile terminal and a network is lost. Spec. 2:18–27. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 10 identifier (ID) of the target cell. The PLMN of the target cell is typically determined from the global cell identity of the target cell. As described above, the cell global identity of the target cell is generally decoded from system parameters received from the target cell and it may take a significant amount of time for the mobile terminal to decode the cell global identify resulting in a delay. Moreover, if the duration of the mobile terminal in the target cell is short or the connection is weak, for example, the mobile terminal may be unable to decode the cell global identity and thus may be unable to obtain the PLMN ID of the target cell. As a consequence, the mobile terminal may be unable to indicate to the PLMN of the target cell that logged MDT measurements are available, or the mobile terminal may not know whether it is allowed to send the measurement log. Another problem may arise as a result of handover failure. For instance, in order for a source cell to successfully handover a mobile terminal to a target cell there is typically a handover time period in which the mobile terminal must indicate to the target cell that it has completed a connection reconfiguration related to received handover parameters. If this time period expires, before the mobile terminal confirms that it completed the connection reconfiguration related to the received handover parameters, the handover may fail. In an instance in which the handover fails, the mobile terminal may be unable to report the handover failure to the target cell since the mobile terminal may not know the cell global identity of the target cell. The mobile terminal may not know the cell global identity of the target cell since the mobile terminal may be unable to decode system information received in the handover parameters before the expiration of the handover time period in order to obtain the cell global identity of the target cell. Spec. 3:21–4:4. In view of the words “typically” and “generally” used in these paragraphs, we agree with the Examiner that the statements in these paragraphs constitute an admission by Appellant that the following features or techniques were known in the field at the time of the effective filing date of the instant Application: (1) a mobile terminal receiving a handover Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 11 command message from a source cell indicating a handover and a connection reconfiguration from the source cell to a target cell; (2) a mobile terminal obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell by decoding system parameters received from the target cell; and (3) a mobile terminal generating and providing a Radio Link Failure report, e.g., in an E-UTRAN, including information specifying the location where the RLF occurred, such as the cell identifications identifying where the RLF occurred. See Final Act. 3–4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 9, 13, 14). Thus, the Examiner’s rejection establishes prima facie evidence of the claim’s unpatentability, which shifts the burden to Appellant to rebut the rejection. See In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Here, Appellant cannot rebut the rejection by merely arguing that the term “prior-art” was never used verbatim. See Shirley, at *12. Appellant may rebut the rejection with credible and sufficient evidence that the disclosure or the statement upon which the Examiner relies does not constitute a prior-art admission. For example, Appellant can affirmatively state and provide credible evidence that the disclosure in question was Appellant’s own work,7 not publicly disclosed more than a year prior to the Application’s filing.8 7 See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (2012) (barring the grant of a patent if the invention was known or used by others in this country or described in a printed publication anywhere before the invention thereof by the applicant); 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (2012) (barring the grant of a patent if the invention was described in particular types of patent applications or patents by another before the invention thereof by the applicant). 8 See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2012) (barring the grant of a patent if the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 12 For the reasons discussed below, Appellant does not provide sufficient explanation or evidence to persuade us of Examiner error. Although Appellant discusses the Background section of the Specification and argues that it “never characterized the Background section as prior art” (Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 4), Appellant does not state affirmatively that the paragraphs relied upon by the Examiner disclose Appellant’s own work. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. In particular, Appellant does not explain or provide credible evidence that E-UTRAN is Appellant’s own work. Nor does Appellant assert or provide credible evidence that Appellant’s own work produced a mobile terminal receiving a handover command message, obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell by decoding system parameters received from the target cell, and generating and providing a Radio Link Failure report including information specifying the location where the RLF occurred. Having reviewed the substantive content of the Specification and the record as a whole, we determine that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation and evidence that the Background paragraphs cited by the Examiner disclose Appellant’s own work, the Examiner did not err in finding that the statements in the Background paragraphs relied upon by the Examiner constitute Appellant Admitted Prior Art that can be used as evidence of obviousness under § 103. See MPEP § 2129(I)9 (instructing that “the examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as ‘prior art’ is applicant’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States). 9 MPEP § 2129(I), 8th Edition, Revision 9 (August 2012). Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 13 another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another”) (emphasis added); see also Shirley, at *11 (“When a review of the record as a whole reasonably implies that—or at least raises a reasonable question of whether—a particular disclosure or statement constitutes a prior-art admission, an Examiner may use such a disclosure or statement in formulating prior-art rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. This is so even if the specific words ‘prior art’ are not expressly used verbatim.”). Motivation to Combine Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the Specification’s Background section with Hapsari because “Hapsari fails to provide a reason or suggestion to improve the accuracy and/or reliability of radio link failure reports, as found in Applicants’ Background section.” Appeal Br. 14. Similarly, Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Hapsari with the Background section because Hapsari does not mention “the noted-problem associated with reporting the location of a radio link failure.” Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 14 there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.” Id. at 419–20. Here, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hapsari’s cell global identifier of the target cell received in a handover command message with the handover command of AAPA “to solve the problems of AAPA, paragraph 0013.” Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, the Background section of the Specification describes “problems occurring/common in the prior art/state of the art.” Ans. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 14). The cited paragraphs describe that “the cell global identity of the target cell is generally decoded from system parameters received from the target cell” (Spec. ¶ 13 (emphasis added)) and that “[i]n an instance in which the handover fails, the mobile terminal may be unable to report the handover failure to the target cell since the mobile terminal may not know the cell global identity of the target cell (id. ¶ 14). Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that these paragraphs describe “problems occurring/common in the prior art/state of the art.” See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. Thus, we find that the Examiner appropriately relies on paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Specification’s Background as providing a “need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent”—i.e., the difficulty in obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell when the handover fails or a Radio Link Failure occurs during a handover—which “can provide a reason for combining” the teachings of AAPA and Hapsari in the manner recited in claim 29. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. The Examiner articulates two reasons for the combination: (1) simple substitution of one known element for another, and (2) obvious to try. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 15 To prove obviousness under an obvious to try theory, there must be a showing (1) that “there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem” and (2) that “there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. Here, the Examiner finds that Hapsari discloses “a few alternatives” for obtaining or receiving the cell global identity of the target cell by the mobile terminal, including (1) receiving the cell global identifier of the target cell in a handover command message and (2) “the approach of the AAPA,” i.e., obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell by decoding the system parameters received from the target cell. Final Act. 4 (citing Hapsari ¶¶ 43–46, 54–56). The Examiner explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to “include the cell global identifier of Hapsari in the handover command of AAPA to solve the problems of AAPA” because the combination would have been obvious to try “as one of only a few alternatives” disclosed in Hapsari, including “the approach of the AAPA.” Id. The cited portions of Hapsari describes a handful of alternative methods of a mobile station obtaining the global cell ID of the target cell (or target base station), including (1) acquiring the global cell ID of the target cell from the handover command (Hapsari ¶¶ 43, 54), (2) acquiring it “through notification by the handover target radio base station” after the handover is completed successfully (id. ¶¶ 44, 55)—which appears to be similar to the conventional method described in the Specification (i.e., “the approach of the AAPA”), and (3) receiving “the broadcast information on the second cell,” i.e., the target cell (id. ¶¶ 45, 46, 56). Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 16 We understand the Examiner’s position to be that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Hapsari’s cell global identifier of the target cell received in a handover command message with the handover command of AAPA to solve the “problems occurring/common in the prior art/state of the art” described in AAPA—i.e., the difficulty in obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell when the handover fails or a Radio Link Failure occurs during a handover—by trying or choosing one of the methods disclosed in Hapsari, i.e., receiving the cell global identifier of the target cell in a handover command message, among the few alternatives described in Hapsari, including “the approach of the AAPA.” Final Act. 4; Ans. 8. The Examiner further explains that because “each of the structural elements of the claimed invention was known and all of the claimed functions to be performed were also known,” “it would only require ordinary skill in the art to perform” the methods disclosed in Hapsari. Ans. 8. As a corollary, we find that the finite solutions described in Hapsari are predictable solutions because they are established solutions already known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s obvious to try rationale to combine AAA and Hapsari in the manner described by the Examiner. We also agree with the Examiner that replacing AAA’s method of obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell (by decoding system parameters received from the target cell) with Hapsari’s method of receiving the target cell identity in a handover command message would have been a mere substitution of one element for another known in the field. Final Act. 4. Where, as here “[an application] claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 17 in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. In this regard, Appellant provides no evidence that replacing AAA’s method of obtaining the cell global identity of the target cell with Hapsari’s method of receiving the target cell identity in a handover command message yields an unexpected result or was beyond the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. Lastly, Appellant argues that “the Examiner . . . used impermissible hindsight to combine Applicants’ teachings with Hapsari.” Appeal Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner relies upon the disclosures of AAA and Hapsari to explain that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Application’s filing would have been motivated to combine AAA and Hapsari in the manner described by the Examiner. See, e.g., Final Act. 4; Ans. 8. This is not evidence of hindsight bias. Appellant does not identify, and we do discern, any particular knowledge used by the Examiner in his combination of AAA and Hapsari that was gleaned only from the Specification’s disclosure and was not within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 18 In sum, we determine that the Examiner articulates sufficient reason, supported by rational underpinning, for combining the teachings of AAA and Hapsari in the manner described by the Examiner. “generating . . . the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell” Next, Appellant argues that neither the Specification’s Background section nor Hapsari teaches or suggests the claim 29’s recitation “generating . . . the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell,” where the “received cell global identifier” is received in “a handover command message . . . from a source cell.” Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on the combination of AAA and Hapsari as teaching or suggesting “generating, at the user equipment, at least one radio link failure report, the at least one radio link failure report including the received cell global identifier of the target cell,” where “the received cell global identifier of the target cell” included in “the at least one radio link failure report” is received in a handover command from a source cell. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 7. Appellant’s argument does not overcome the Examiner’s finding of obviousness because “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 19 “cell global identifier” Appellant argues that Hapsari’s global cell ID is not the “cell global identifier” recited in claim 29 because the claimed “cell global identifier” includes “a Mobile Country Code (MCC), Mobile Network Code (MNC), Location Area Code (LAC) and a cell identifier, all of which uniquely identify the cell.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Spec. ¶ 71). The Examiner responds that “a Mobile Country Code (MCC), Mobile Network Code (MNC), Location Area Code (LAC)” are not recited in claim 29 and that “limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” We agree with the Examiner. Paragraph 71 of the Specification cited by Appellant states The global cell identifier (e.g. CGI, E-CGI, etc.) may be a unique identifier of a cell site in cellular network(s) (e.g., E-UTRAN, UTRAN, etc.). The global cell identifier may include data (e.g., a location identity code) indicating a location of a corresponding cell in a cellular network. Additionally or alternatively, in an example embodiment, the global cell identifier may identify a country (e.g., Mobile Country Code (MMC) = 310), a corresponding network (e.g., mobile network code (MNC) = 380), a corresponding PLMN(s), a location area code (LAC) (e.g., LAC = 34512), a specific cell (e.g., cell identifier = 23411) or sector, and any other suitable data corresponding to a cell(s). Spec. 16:3–9 (emphases added). Thus, the Specification describes that a global cell identifier is a “unique identifier of a cell site” that “[a]dditionally or alternatively, in an example embodiment,” may include a Mobile Country Code (MCC), Mobile Network Code (MNC), and Location Area Code (LAC). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 20 specification and prosecution history.” Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Straight Path IP Grp., Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O., 806 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In general “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Established exceptions to this general rule include lexicography and disavowal. See, e.g., GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“the specification and prosecution history only compel departure from the plain meaning in two instances: lexicography and disavowal”) (citation omitted). Here, Appellant does not argue lexicography or disavowal. Indeed, Appellant does not address the Examiner’s explanation that “a Mobile Country Code (MCC), Mobile Network Code (MNC), Location Area Code (LAC)” are not recited in claim 29 and that “limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” See generally Reply Br. Hapsari describes that “a global cell ID . . . can uniquely identify the second cell,” i.e., the target cell. Hapsari ¶ 40 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hapsari’s global cell ID teaches the “cell global identifier” of the target cell recited in claim 29 under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 29. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections on this record. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 29–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-005865 Application 13/982,918 21 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 29, 30, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 48 103 AAPA, Hapsari 29, 30, 34, 35, 41, 42, 45, 48 31, 32, 36, 37, 43, 46 103 AAPA, Hapsari, Wang 31, 32, 36, 37, 43, 46 33, 38–40, 44, 47 103 AAPA, Hapsari, Wang, Sammour 33, 38–40, 44, 47 Overall Outcome 29–48 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation