NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 13, 2020

15564877 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2020)

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. 15/564,877 10/06/2017 Devaki CHANDRAMOULI 089229.01434 8952 11051 7590 08/13/2020 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER CUMMING, WILLIAM D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2020 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): IP-Squire@SquirePB.com sonia.whitney@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DEVAKI CHANDRAMOULI, DAVID NAVRATIL, and RAINER LIEBHART Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 11–14, 16, 19, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy.” Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to automating the establishment of a multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS) bearer. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8–9. Claim 1 is illustrative of argued subject matter. 1. A method, comprising: reporting at least a first set of user equipment location information and at least a second set of user equipment location information from the user equipment to at least one network node for broadcast bearer management, wherein the first set of user equipment location information comprises a serving cell identity of the user equipment, wherein the second set of user equipment location information comprises at least one identity of at least one network service area for media broadcasting, and wherein broadcast bearer management is based on the at least first set of user equipment location information and the at least second set of user equipment location information. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix). Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fukunaga (US 2009/0245155 A1; Oct. 1, 2009). Final Act. 2–5. Claims 3, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fukunaga and X. Zhang (US 2012/0236776 A1; Sept. 20, 2012). Final Act. 7–8. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fukunaga and D. Zhang (US 2012/0287838 A1; Nov. 15, 2012). Final Act. 8–9. Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 3 OPINION Claims 1, 11, and 12 Appellant contends Fukunaga does not teach or suggest the following claim limitation: “reporting at least a first set of user equipment location information and at least a second set of user equipment location information from the user equipment to at least one network node for broadcast bearer management,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 4–5. Specifically, Appellant contends Fukunaga’s Cell ID and MBSFN Area ID do not respectively teach the claimed first and second sets of user equipment (UE) location information, because the Cell ID and the MBSFN Area ID are not reported by UE (as is required of the claimed first and second sets of UE location information). Id. In support, Appellant further contends Fukunaga does not include the MBSFN area ID or Cell ID in the “Measurement Report” transmitted by the UE, but rather includes the MBSFN area ID and Cell ID in a “MBMS receiving quality report” received by the UE. Id. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellant’s argument mischaracterizes Fukunaga’s UE reports. Fukanaga teaches that each UE device reports receiving-quality information to a base station (BS). Fukunaga ¶ 45. The information is reported via either a “MESSAGE (CCCH) corresponding to RRC CONNECTION REQUEST” (id. ¶ 60) or a “MEASUREMENT REPORT (DCCH)” (id. ¶ 59). “[P]arameters illustrated in FIG. 5 are newly defined in the Message corresponding to the RRC CONNECTION REQUEST or the MEASUREMENT REPORT.” Id. ¶ 62. These parameters include the MBSFN area ID and Cell ID. Id. ¶ 63; Fig. 5. In sum, each UE reports receiving-quality information to a BS via the RRC CONNECTION REQUEST “Message” or the DCCH “Measurement Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 4 Report.” Id. ¶¶ 45, 59–60. And, each such “Message” and “Measurement Report” includes the MBSFN area ID and Cell ID. Id. ¶¶ 62–63; Fig. 5. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 11 and 12 as with claim 1. App. Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 4–6. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12. Claim 2 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the identity of the network service area comprises a multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS) service area identity.” Appellant contends Fukunaga’s service area identity of paragraph 66 is cited as identifying an MBMS service area, but Fukunaga’s paragraph 66 does not teach or suggest an identification of an MBMS service area. Appeal Br. 11. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific determination that Fukunaga’s MBSFN area ID (claimed “identity of the network service area”) identifies an MBMS service area (claimed “comprises a multimedia broadcast/multicast service (MBMS) service area identity”). Ans. 14. Appellant does not rebut this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. Claims 4 and 14 Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the reporting comprises reporting from the user equipment . . . to an intermediate node.” Appellant contends “[t]he Office Action has merely identified figures and Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 5 paragraphs [of Fukunaga] without providing specific identification to . . . a disclosure or suggestion of the [claimed] reporting.” Appeal Br. 11. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific determination, in the Answer, that Fukunaga’s BS and MCE each teach or suggest the claimed intermediate node. Ans. 15–17. Appellant does not rebut this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 14 as with claim 4. App. Br. 14. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 4, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Claim 32 Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 32 as with claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we are unpersuaded of error. Appellant also argues that Fukunaga does not teach a “non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions that, when executed in hardware, perform . . . the [claimed] process.” Appeal Br. 15. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s finding that Fukunaga’s “hardware (figure 1) [] performs [the claimed] process (figure 2 for example), and inherently must have some memory (a nontransitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions) to store data and programs . . . operat[ing]” the process. Ans. 18; see also Reply Br. 4–6 (not addressing claim 32). Claims 3 and 13 Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and adds: “wherein the serving cell identity of the user equipment comprises a cell global identifier.” Appellant Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 6 contends the Examiner finds, but fails to show, X. Zhang’s global identifier of paragraph 203 teaches or suggests the claimed “serving cell identity of the user equipment.” Appeal Br. 16. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific determination that Fukunaga teaches a serving cell identity of user equipment and X. Zhang teaches that a serving cell identity can be a global identifier and namely a “Cell Global Identity (CGI).” Ans. 20. Appellant does not rebut this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 13 as with claim 3. App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 3, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 13. Claim 19 Claim 19 depends from claim 16 and adds: “wherein the apparatus comprises . . . a broadcast multicast service center.” Appellant contends the Examiner finds, but fails to show, X. Zhang’s paragraphs 5 and 7–8 teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. Appeal Br. 16–17. We are unpersuaded because the Examiner provides a specific determination that X. Zhang’s MBMS gateway of paragraphs 184–85 teaches or suggests the claimed subject matter. Ans. 21–22. Appellant does not contest this finding, e.g., via a response in the Reply Brief. Thus, for the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claims 6 and 16 Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 6 and 16 as with claim 1. For the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 16. Appeal 2019-006108 Application 15/564,877 7 OVERALL CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 11–14, 16, 19, and 32. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 32 § 102(a)(1) Fukunaga 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 14, 32 3, 13, 19 § 103 Fukunaga, X. Zhang 3, 13, 19 6, 16 § 103 Fukunaga, D. Zhang 6, 16 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 11–14, 16, 19, 32 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