NEC CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2021

2019006954 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2021)

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