Koskinen, Jussi Pekka et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 22, 202014237868 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020) 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. 14/237,868 02/07/2014 Jussi Pekka Koskinen NC76570-US-PCT 2718 12358 7590 06/22/2020 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 EXAMINER HANNAN, B M M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/22/2020 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 Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUSSI PEKKA KOSKINEN and JARKKO T. KOSKELA ___________________ Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 41–43, 45–48, 50–53, 55–58, 60, 61, and 63–68. Non-Final Act. 5–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer 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 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 2 Claim 41 is reproduced below (italics added to emphasize the limitation at issue). 41. A method comprising: determining that a user equipment is in an any cell selection state, the user equipment in the any cell selection state is not camped on any cell and is attempting to identify an acceptable cell associated with any public land mobile network to camp on; in response to determining that the user equipment is in the any cell selection state, determining that a current physical cell identification split is invalid, the current physical cell identification split comprising information identifying a range of closed subscriber group cells; and in response to the determination that the current physical cell identification split is invalid, voiding the current physical cell identification split to at least prevent the current physical cell identification split from being utilized by the user equipment to identify the acceptable cell. REJECTIONS I. Claims 41, 45–48, 51, 55–58, 61, 64, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung and Kwun.2 Non-Final Act. 5– 22. II. Claims 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung, Kwun, and Maeda ʼ286.3 Non- Final Act. 22–28. 2 Jung (US 2010/0130215 A1, published May 27, 2010); Kwun (US 2011/0190000 A1, published Aug. 4, 2011). 3 Maeda ʼ286 (EP 2 346 286 A1, published July 20, 2011). Although the Examiner’s rejection is based on Maeda ʼ286, the Examiner’s citations refer to Maeda ʼ732 (US 2001/0216732 A1, published Sept. 8, 2011), which is the U.S. equivalent of Maeda ’286. Non-Final Act. 22. Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 3 III. Claims 65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung, Kwun, and Singh.4 Non-Final Act. 28–30. ANALYSIS Claims 41, 45–48, 51, 55–58, 61, 64, and 66 The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of claims 41, 45–48, 51, 55–58, 61, 64, and 66 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Jung and Kwun. Non-Final Act. 5–22. Independent claim 41 recites the step, “in response to determining that the user equipment is in the any cell selection state, determining that a current physical cell identification split is invalid, the current physical cell identification split comprising information identifying a range of closed subscriber group cells.” Put differently, claim 41 defines a physical cell identification (PCI) split as a range of closed subscriber group cells, and requires determining that a current PCI split is invalid. Independent claims 51 and 61 recite similar limitations. For context, the Background of Appellant’s Specification explains that a PCI split can become invalidbased on a number of factors, such as when user equipment (UE)5 move to another location. Spec. 1–2. In this scenario, the UE continues to use the current PCI split to find an available cell to camp on, even though the split is invalid. Id. at 2. In so doing, the UE may be unable to find an available cell, resulting in the UE being unable to connect to the network. Id. at 2; see also id. (summarizing the invention as deleting or not using a PCI split when it is no longer valid in a current 4 Singh (US 2010/0120426 A1, published May 13, 2010). 5 E.g., a mobile device. Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 4 location, and further describing that an inability to connect to an access point is a cause for determining that the mobile terminal is at a location in which the split is not valid). In rejecting independent claims 41, 51, and 61, the Examiner finds that paragraph 84 and Figures 9–10 of Jung teach the argued limitation. Non-Final Act. 6, 12, 19. Jung teaches that each closed subscriber group (CSG) has its own identification number called a CSG identify (CSG ID). Jung ¶ 83. The UE has a CSG list to which the UE belongs as a member. Id. A base station delivers the CSG ID of the CSG to a UE, and the UE uses the CSG list to determine whether the UE is a member of the corresponding CSG cell and the cell is, thus, accessible. Id. ¶¶ 79, 84. Figures 9 and 10 of Jung each shows a base station sending a CSG indicator and a CSG ID to the UE. The UE determines from the CSG indicator that the corresponding cell is a CSG cell, and ultimately concludes that the UE is not a CSG member of the CSG cell, i.e., the corresponding cell is access-restricted. Id. ¶¶ 110, 112, Figs. 9–10. However, the manner in which a CSG cell is determined to be access-restricted differs in the two embodiments. In Figure 9 the UE has an accessible CSG list. Id. ¶ 109. Therefore, after determining that the corresponding cell is a CSG cell, the UE checks the CSG identity received from the base station against the accessible CSG list to determine whether the UE is a CSG member of the cell. Id. ¶ 110. In contrast, in Figure 10, the UE does not have an accessible CSG list. Id. ¶111. In that case, after determining that a corresponding cell is a CSG cell, the UE regards the cell as access-restricted without any check of the CSG identity received from the base station. Id. ¶ 112. Because both scenarios involve determining that the corresponding cell is access- Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 5 restricted, the UE does not perform an initial connection process between the UE and the base station. Id. ¶¶ 110, 112, Figs. 9–10. The Examiner construes Jung’s CSG ID as the PCI split. Non-Final Act. 6, 12, 19. However, Jung’s CSG ID identifies one closed subscriber group cell (see Jung ¶ 83) and, as such, does not teach the claimed PCI split “comprising information identifying a range of closed subscriber group cells,” as recited in claim 41, and similarly recited in claims 51 and 61. The Examiner further finds that Jung’s disclosure of determining whether a corresponding cell is access-restricted based on the CSG ID received from the base station teaches determining that a PCI split is invalid. See Non-Final Act. 6 (citing Jung ¶ 84, Figs. 9–10). However, these portions of Jung, at best, teach using a current PCI split, i.e., an available CSG list, to determine whether the UE is a member of the corresponding CSG cell. Jung ¶¶ 83–84, 109–110, Fig. 9. The portions of Jung relied on by the Examiner do not teach or suggest determining that a current PCI split itself is invalid, much less making such determination in response to determining that the user equipment is in the any cell selection state, as required by claims 41, 51, and 61. The Examiner acknowledges that Jung does not teach that a PCI split comprises information identifying a range of closed subscriber group cells, as required by claims 41, 51, and 61, and finds that Kwun teaches this aspect of the limitation. Non-Final Act. 7–8 (citing Kwun ¶¶ 24, 35, 38, 42), 13– 14, 20–21. Even if one of ordinary skill in the art were to combine Jung and Kwun in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the Examiner still fails to establish that the combination would have resulted in determining that a current physical cell identification split is invalid, much less that the Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 6 determination is performed in response to determining that the user equipment is in the any cell selection state, as required by claims 41, 51, and 61. Appeal Br. 17; Reply Br. 2–3. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 41, 51, and 61, and dependent claims 45–48, 55–58, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung and Kwun. Claims 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, and 686 The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of dependent claims 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, and 68 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Jung, Kwun, and Maeda ʼ286. Non-Final Act. 22– 28. The Examiner finds that “Maeda teaches, in response to an out of network search, voiding the current physical cell identification split.” Non- Final Act. 22 (citing Maeda ʼ732 ¶ 103). Consequently, the Examiner does not rely on Maeda in a manner that remedies the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Jung and Kwun as applied to independent claims 41, 51, and 61. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung, Kwun, and Maeda ʼ286. Claims 65 and 67 The Examiner concludes that the subject matter of dependent claims 65 and 67 would have been obvious from the combined teachings of Jung, Kwun, and Singh. Non-Final Act. 28–30. The Examiner finds that “Singh 6 We note that claim 68 purports to depend from cancelled claim 1. Appeal 2019-005095 Application 14/237,868 7 teaches, wherein the information identifying the range of closed subscriber group cells comprises a closed group subscriber primary synchronization code split information.” Non-Final Act. 28–29 (citing Singh ¶¶ 8, 49, 53– 54). The Examiner has not shown that Singh remedies the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Jung and Kwun as applied to independent claims 41, 51, and 61. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 65 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung, Kwun, and Singh. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 41, 45–48, 51, 55–58, 61, 64, 66 103 Jung, Kwun 41, 45–48, 51, 55–58, 61, 64, 66 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, 68 103 Jung, Kwun, Maeda ʼ723 42, 43, 50, 52, 53, 60, 63, 68 65, 67 103 Jung, Kwun, Singh 65, 67 Overall Outcome 41–43, 45– 48, 50–53, 55–58, 60, 61, 63–68 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation