NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS OY

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 21, 2021

2020003278 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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. 14/767,623 08/13/2015 Henning SANNECK 089229.01067 1412 11051 7590 09/21/2021 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER KIM, HARRY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2021 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): 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 HENNING SANNECK and HAITAO TANG Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 14–33. 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 Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “[m]ethod of adapting operation of self- organizing network functions.” Spec., Title. Claim 14, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 14. A processor executed method of tuning operation of at least one self-organizing network function in a communication network comprising a big data system and a self-organizing network system, the method comprising: collecting, at the processor, data from network elements; tuning the operation of the at least one self-organizing network function by using knowledge achieved by an analysis performed by the big data system on the collected data, wherein the big data system comprises data of a network domain of the at least one self-organizing network function and data of another network domain of another self-organizing network function. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Mukhopadhyay US 2012/0307697 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 Furuhashi US 2013/0124483 A1 May 16, 2013 Han US 2014/0293831 A1 Oct. 2, 2014 Karla US 2015/0045008 A1 Feb. 12, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 14–23, 26–28, and 31–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi. Final Act. 3–14. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, and Karla. Final Act. 14–15. Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 3 Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, and Han. Final Act. 15–17. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14–23, 26–28, and 31–33 over Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi The Examiner finds Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi teach all limitations of claim 14. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner finds Mukhopadhyay teaches all limitations of claim 14 except “Mukhopadhyay does not specifically teach about a big data system.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 19–21. The Examiner finds Furuhashi teaches the big data system. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 21–23. The Examiner reasons: It, therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Mukhopadhyay’s method by using the features of Furuhashi in order to have more dynamic method such that “The system 100 is suitable for use with big datasets such as datasets measured in the terabytes, petabytes, or even greater data size.” Final Act. 5 (citing Furuhashi ¶ 12). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. Mukhopadhyay describes “a single type of ICIC [(Inter-Cell Interference Coordination function)], and that the first set of cells 1110 [(Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11)] and the second set of cells 1120 [(Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11)] relate to the same ICIC.” Appeal Br. 8. That is, “Mukhopadhyay merely describes a single type of SON [(self-organizing network)] function, which is in contrast to the present claims that recite network domains of two different SON functions.” Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 3–5. Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 4 ii. Furuhashi also does not describe “data of a network domain of at least one SON function, and data of another network domain of another SON function.” Appeal Br. 9. iii. “Furuhashi . . . merely describes a system for operating a big- data platform, but does not disclose or suggest any information as to a big- data platform that includes data of a network domain of at least one self- organizing network function and data of another network domain of another self-organizing network function.” Appeal Br. 10. “Furuhashi focuses on providing a system for operating a big-data platform in a distributed systems field, but does not disclose or suggest the big data system recited in claim 14.” Appeal Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5–6. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any error in the contested Examiner’s findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. The issue before us is whether Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi teach the key disputed limitation of claim 14. Mukhopadhyay discloses “an Inter-Cell Interference Coordination (ICIC) function may be supported. The ICIC function may be configured to improve interference limitations found in cellular systems deployed with universal reuse.” Mukhopadhyay ¶ 242. Thus, we determine Mukhopadhyay discloses a self-organizing network function. We further determine Mukhopadhyay discloses additional self-organizing network functions. Mukhopadhyay Fig. 13. Mukhopadhyay discloses “[a]s depicted in FIG. 11, a first set of cells 1110 employs frequency reuse and a second set of cells 1120 employs Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 5 fractional frequency reuse.” Mukhopadhyay ¶ 243. Thus, we determine Mukhopadhyay discloses a network domain (Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11, cells 1110) and another network domain (Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11, cells 1120). Taking these disclosures of Mukhopadhyay together, we determine Mukhopadhyay discloses “data of a network domain of the at least one self- organizing network function” (Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11, cells 1110; one of the ICIC function and the additional functions disclosed in Mukhopadhyay) “and data of another network domain of another self-organizing network function” (Mukhopadhyay Fig. 11, cells 1120; another of the ICIC function and the additional functions disclosed in Mukhopadhyay) as recited in claim 14. Furuhashi discloses “a system 100 for operating a big-data platform of a preferred embodiment of the invention includes a client data agent 110 integrated with a discrete event channel, a remote distributed storage system 120, a query processing cluster 130, and a query interface 140.” Furuhashi ¶ 12. Thus, Furuhashi discloses “the big data system” as recited in claim 14. The Examiner articulates a reason to combine the references that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 5 (citing Furuhashi ¶ 12). Appellant has not presented any particularized arguments as to why this reasoning is incorrect. See Appeal Br. 7–10; see also Reply Br. 3–6. Accordingly, we determine the combined teachings of Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi teach “wherein the big data system comprises data of a network domain of the at least one self-organizing network function and data of another network domain of another self-organizing network function” as recited in claim 14. Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 6 Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), this argument does not show any Examiner error for reasons explained above and because we determine Mukhopadhyay discloses the ICIC function and further discloses additional self-organizing network functions. Mukhopadhyay ¶ 242, Fig. 13. Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), this argument does not show any Examiner error for reasons explained above and because we determine Mukhopadhyay discloses “data of a network domain of the at least one self- organizing network function and data of another network domain of another self-organizing network function” as recited in claim 14. Mukhopadhyay ¶¶ 242, 243, Fig. 11, cells 1110, cells 1210, Fig. 13. Regarding Appellant’s argument (iii), this argument also does not show any Examiner error. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant’s particularized arguments are directed to Furuhashi, while the contested findings are based on the collective teachings of Mukhopadhyay and Furuhashi. For this reason and for reasons further explained above, we do not see any Examiner error. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–23, 26–28, and 31–33, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 11–17; see also Reply Br. 3–6. Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 7 The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 24 and 25 over Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, and Karla Appellant does not identify any issues for our review. See Appeal Br. 17–18; see also Reply Br. 3–6. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 29 and 30 over Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, and Han Appellant does not identify any issues for our review. See Appeal Br. 18–20; see also Reply Br. 3–6. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 30. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14–33 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 14–23, 26– 28, 31–33 103 Mukhopadhya, Furuhashi 14–23, 26– 28, 31–33 24, 25 103 Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, Karla 24, 25 29, 30 103 Mukhopadhyay, Furuhashi, Han 29, 30 Overall Outcome 14–33 Appeal 2020-003278 Application 14/767,623 8 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) (2019). AFFIRMED