NEC CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 20212019006954 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 15/027,214 04/04/2016 Atsushi NAKATA 5660020084US01 7054 71799 7590 03/30/2021 Mr. Jiro Hashimoto NEC-IAC 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER MIAN, OMER S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2021 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): jiro.hashimoto@necam.com necipc_shien@nepas.jp.nec.com necipca@necam.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ATSUSHI NAKATA and YASUHIKO MATSUNAGA Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. ZADO, 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 1–10 and 12–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as NEC Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The application relates to control of a virtualized mobile communication network. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 1, 10. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A network control system comprising: a mediation module including at least one hardware processor and configured to receive common resource partitioning information indicating slicing of network resources among a plurality of mobile network operators and generate at least two of first to third configurations in accordance with the common resource partitioning information, the first configuration indicating allocation of first network resources of a radio access network to the plurality of mobile network operators, the second configuration indicating allocation of second network resources of a mobile backhaul network to the plurality of mobile network operators, the third configuration indicating allocation of third network resources of a core network to the plurality of mobile network operators, wherein the first, second, and third network resources are different types of network resources and are used separately for the radio access network, the mobile backhaul network, and the core network, respectively; and an enforcement module including at least one hardware processor and configured to enforce the at least two of the first to third configurations, respectively, to at least two of the radio access network, the mobile backhaul network, and the core network in order to allow the plurality of mobile network operators to share the at least two networks. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Donepudi US 2014/0133456 A1 May 15, 2014 McCann US 2014/0362790 A1 Dec. 11, 2014 Picker US 2015/0304223 A1 Oct. 22, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1–9 and 12–192 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Donepudi and Picker. Ans. 3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Donepudi, Picker, and McCann. Id. OPINION Specification The Specification states that when a plurality of mobile network operators (“MNOs”) share a radio access network (“RAN”), a mobile backhaul network, and a core network, the allocation of these three resources must be configured in accordance with agreement contracts defining the slicing of network resources among the MNOs. Spec. ¶ 9. According to the Specification, an operator must perform the network configuration, and the burden of doing so is large. Id. It is therefore an object of the invention to “provide a system, an apparatus, a method, and a program for network control that can contribute, when at least two of a RAN, a mobile backhaul, 2 The Examiner states in the Answer that claim 11 stands rejected over the combination of Donepudi and Picker. Ans. 3. However, claim 11 has been cancelled by Appellant, and Appellant does not appeal the rejection of this claim. Appeal Br. 9 fn. 1; id. at 17. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 4 and a core network are shared among a plurality of MNOs, to improving the efficiency of performing setting of network resource allocation on the at least two networks to be shared.” Id. ¶ 10. The proposed solution provides for a network control module configured to enforce network resource allocation for at least two of the RAN, mobile backhaul, and core network in accordance with common resource partitioning information indicating slicing of network resources among the plurality of MNOs. Id. ¶ 11. Discussion Appellant presents two arguments. For the reasons discussed below, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1–10 and 12–19, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections. 1. Generating at least Two of First to Third Configurations3 First, Appellant asserts that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Donepudi does not teach “a mediation module . . . configured to receive common resource partitioning information indicating slicing of network resources among a plurality of mobile network operators and generate at least two of first to third configurations in accordance with the common resource partitioning information,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant concedes that Donepudi’s computing cloud (i.e., asserted mediation module), manages pooled radio resources, but argues the computing cloud does not receive common resource partitioning information, and generate configurations in accordance with common resource partitioning information, as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. According to Appellant, Donepudi at most discloses a Software Defined 3 The title of this subheading is based on the heading in Appellant’s Brief, and should not be interpreted further. Appeal Br. 9. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 5 Network (“SDN”) gateway (that is in communication with the computing cloud) passing information to SDN-controlled devices, arguing Donepudi fails to teach the computing cloud generating, rather than passing, SDN policies received from the SDN controller, for allocating resources to be used for the RAN and backhaul. Id. at 10 (citing Donepudi ¶ 88). The Examiner responds that, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Donepudi teaches receiving common resource partitioning information and generating configurations for a RAN and backhaul in accordance with the common resource partitioning information. Ans. 6–14. We agree. First, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Donepudi discloses “common resource partitioning information,” as claimed. Donepudi discloses a split virtualization embodiment in which the computing cloud stores in memory a list of resources dedicated to each specific mobile network operator. Ans. 6–7 (citing Donepudi ¶¶ 79–80); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Donepudi ¶¶ 77–83). We are persuaded that this disclosure teaches “common resource partitioning information indicating slicing of network resources among a plurality of mobile network operators,” because Donepudi expressly provides that the list of resources indicates the resources (e.g., the commonly shared radio access and mobile backhaul network resources) reserved for each specific mobile network operator. Id. Appellant submits the information is not common because it is contained on multiple lists. Reply Br. 3. However, this argument is unpersuasive. The term in the claim, “common resource,” refers to network resources that are common, or shared. See Ans. 7 (explaining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood Donepudi’s lists teaches “common resource partitioning information” because the information is used to split Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 6 common resources among different network operators). Appellant does not provide, nor do we discern, a persuasive reason why claim 1 would preclude information concerning the allocation of common resources from being contained in multiple lists in stored memory. Claim 1 recites no such constraint. In addition, as explained by the Examiner, a skilled artisan would have reasonably interpreted Donepudi’s teaching of the computing cloud splitting of network resources as teaching slicing of network resources. Ans. 14–15 (citing Donepudi ¶ 79). We also agree with the Examiner that Donepudi teaches a mediation module, i.e., Donepudi’s computing cloud, receiving the common resource partitioning information, e.g., Donepudi’s list of dedicated radio resources reserved for each operator. As the Examiner explains, although in some embodiments the computing cloud retrieves this information from its own memory, in an alternative embodiment the computing cloud receives this information when it is retrieved from an SDN controller. Ans. 6–9 (citing Donepudi ¶¶ 49, 88, Fig. 3). Appellant also has not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s finding that Donepudi teaches a mediation module generating at least two of first to third configurations in accordance with the common resource partitioning information. Figures 3 and 5 of Donepudi, reproduced below, are illustrative. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 7 Figure 3 depicts an exemplary heterogeneous mesh network 300 that various virtualization embodiments rely on in Donepudi Figure 5 illustrates a virtualized wireless communications network 500 Figure 3 depicts an exemplary heterogeneous mesh network 300 that various virtualization embodiments rely on in Donepudi. Donepudi ¶ 47. Figure 5 illustrates a virtualized wireless communications network 500. Id. ¶ 50. As shown in Figure 3, mesh network 300 includes multi-radio access technology (“multi-RAT”) nodes 310, 320, and 330, each having a radio Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 8 access side—e.g., LTE, 3G, or wi-fi—and a backhaul radio side—e.g., wi-fi. Each multi-RAT node communicates with computing cloud 340 either through a wireless or wired connection. Id. ¶ 47. As shown in Figure 5, a virtualized communication network also may include a core network coupled to the computing cloud. Id. ¶ 52. Donepudi discloses that the computing cloud virtualizes, e.g., manages, both the pooled access radio and backhaul radio resources so that the core network believes that it has a single connection to a base station. See, e.g., Ans. 12–13 (citing Donepudi ¶ 75 (“In the first step, the computing cloud 340, 530, 630, or 730 pools 810 the radio resources of the multi-RAT nodes . . . the pooled resources can be used for either access or backhaul”)); Donepudi ¶ 77. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would have understood Donepudi’s computing cloud generates at least two of the first to third configurations, namely the RAN and mobile backhaul configurations, because Donepudi expressly discloses the computing cloud managing the pooled resources of the radio access and backhaul radio networks. A skilled artisan would reasonably have understood that management of these pooled resources, e.g., splitting radio access and mobile backhaul resources among network operators by the computing cloud, as configuring RAN and backhaul resources. We find insufficient evidence to support Appellant’s assertion that Donepudi’s computing cloud merely passes control information received from an SDN controller to SDN controlled devices, and therefore does not generate configuration information. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant relies solely on paragraph 88 of Donepudi, Appeal Br. 10, which provides that an SDN Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 9 controller “could be communicatively coupled to the computing cloud,” and “could be implemented in a proxy mode, passing along all control information to SDN controlled devices,” Donepudi ¶ 88 (emphasis added). This at most discloses an exemplary embodiment in which an SDN controller passes all control information to SDN controlled devices, but does not negate Donepudi’s teaching or suggesting the computing cloud, which acts as a controller, generating control information. For example, Donepudi discloses that the computing cloud takes various factors into account when it (not some other component) manages the pooled radio resources. Donepudi ¶ 78 (“The computing cloud 340, 530, 630, or 730 takes [enumerated] factors into consideration when it manages 830 the pooled radio resources”). Donepudi further discloses the computing cloud providing radio resources to mobile network operators from the pool of radio resources. Id. ¶¶ 79–81. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Donepudi teaches “a mediation module . . . configured to receive common resource partitioning information indicating slicing of network resources among a plurality of mobile network operators and generate at least two of first to third configurations in accordance with the common resource partitioning information,” as recited in claim 1. 2. First, Second, and Third Network Resources4 Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown that Donepudi teaches “the first configuration indicating allocation of first network resources of a radio access network to the plurality of mobile network operators, the second configuration indicating allocation of second network resources of a 4 The title of this subheading is taken from the subheading in Appellant’s Brief, and should not be interpreted further. Appeal Br. 11. Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 10 mobile backhaul network to the plurality of mobile network operators,” and “the first, second, and third network resources are different types of network resources and are used separately for the radio access network, the mobile backhaul network, and the core network, respectively,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant acknowledges Donepudi’s multi-RAT nodes include both a radio access network side and a mobile backhaul network side, but asserts, without further explanation, that the cited portions of Donepudi fail to teach or suggest: (1) generating a first configuration that indicates allocation of the Wifi radio and the LTE radio or the access hardware 420 and backhaul hardware 430 to the plurality of network operators, and (2) generating a second configuration that indicates allocation of the other of the Wifi radio and the LTE radio or the other of the access hardware 420 and backhaul hardware 430 to the plurality of network operators. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant’s assertion fails to persuade us. First, Appellant asserts that Donepudi fails to do certain things, but does not tie these alleged failures to the language of claim 1. For example, Appellant states that Donepudi lacks a first configuration indicating allocation of first network resources of a radio access network and a mobile backhaul network. Yet, as to the first configuration, claim 1 requires indicating allocation resources only of a radio access network. Next, Appellant’s emphasis of certain words and phrases using bold, underline, and italics, does not amount to argument. Assuming arguendo that Appellant’s argument, based on the emphasized language, is that the configurations in Donepudi do not indicate allocation of first and second Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 11 network resources, respectively, “to the plurality of mobile network operators,” as recited in claim 1, Appellant provides no explanation or evidence in support of such argument. Contrary to Appellant’s unsupported assertion, the Examiner identifies sufficient evidence that the configurations in Donepudi indicate the allocation of network resources to a plurality of mobile network operators. Ans. 15–23. As explained by the Examiner, Donepudi discloses the computing cloud performing network resource management of the pooled—i.e., radio access network and mobile backhaul network— resources, splitting the resources based on the amount reserved—i.e., allocated—to each mobile network operator. Id.; see also e.g., Donepudi ¶ 47 (“each multi-RAT node 310, 320, 330 has an access radio and a backhaul”); id. ¶ 75 (“the computing cloud 340, 530, 630, or 730 pools 810 the radio resources of the multi-RAT nodes . . . the pooled radio resources can be used for either access or backhaul.”); id. ¶¶ 78–79 (“Stepping behind the curtain of virtualization, one of the goals of computing cloud 340, 530, 630, or 730 is to efficiently manage all of its pooled resources . . . this management could be performed in [a variety of] ways . . . [i]n a . . . split virtualization [embodiment,] the computing cloud 340, 530, 630, or 730 could store in a memory a list of dedicated radio resources reserved for each operator”). We agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have understood that this disclosure teaches the claimed “first configuration” and “second configuration” indicating allocation of network resources to a plurality of network operators. This is because the management of Donepudi’s pooled resources includes splitting, e.g., allocating, these Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 12 resources to a plurality of network operators. Moreover, we are persuaded that Donepudi teaches a first configuration indicating allocation of first network resources of a radio access network because the pooled resources managed in Donepudi include the radio access network side of the multi- RAT nodes. We are further persuaded that Donepudi teaches a second configuration indicating allocation of second network resources of a mobile backhaul network because the pooled resources managed in Donepudi include the mobile backhaul network side of the multi-RAT nodes. Appellant also asserts, without any explanation, that the cited portions of Donepudi do not “disclose that such configurations are in accordance with common resource partitioning information.” Appeal Br. 12. This argument is unpersuasive because a statement that the prior art fails to disclose certain recited claim features, without more, is not an argument. We give little weight to Appellant’s unexplained assertion. Moreover, we are persuaded that the configurations in Donepudi are in accordance with common resource partitioning information because, as we discussed in the previous section, they are in accordance with information regarding the splitting of commonly pooled resources. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Donepudi teaches “the first configuration indicating allocation of first network resources of a radio access network to the plurality of mobile network operators, the second configuration indicating allocation of second network resources of a mobile backhaul network to the plurality of mobile network operators,” and “the first, second, and third network resources are different types of network resources and are used Appeal 2019-006954 Application 15/027,214 13 separately for the radio access network, the mobile backhaul network, and the core network, respectively,” as recited in claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. More specifically, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–9 and 12–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Donepudi and Picker; and we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Donepudi, Picker, and McCann. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 12–19 103 Donepudi, Picker 1–9, 12–19 10 103 Donepudi, Picker, McCann 10 Overall Outcome 1–10, 12–19 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