Nokia Technologies Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 7, 2021

2019005213 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 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. 14/851,092 09/11/2015 Ilkka Antero Keskitalo 059864.02523 7166 11051 7590 01/07/2021 SQUIRE PB (Nokia) Nokia Technologies Oy ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER LY, ANH VU H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2472 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/07/2021 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 ILKKA ANTERO KESKITALO, JORMA JOHANNES KAIKKONEN, and LARS DALSGAARD ____________________ Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, 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, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14, all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 3, 6, and 15–20 are canceled. Id. at 21, 22, 24 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to logging measurements in communications systems, and, in particular, in communication systems employing multimedia broadcast multicast service. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claim 1 is representative (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method comprising: [A.] logging, by a user equipment, a multicast-broadcast single-frequency network measurement corresponding to a logging period; and [B.] storing, at the time the multicast-broadcast single- frequency network measurement is made, cell measurement results, [C.] wherein the user equipment logs only a latest multicast- broadcast single-frequency network measurement prior to an end of the logging period, [D.] wherein the logged latest multicast-broadcast single- frequency network measurement is configured to support verification of multicast-broadcast single- frequency network actual signal reception. REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Mansson US 2011/0013730 A1 Jan. 20, 2011 Fukuta US 2016/0212595 A1 July 21, 2016 Lee US 2017/0295054 A1 Oct. 12, 2017 2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 3 REJECTIONS A. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, and 7–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fukuta and Lee. Final Act. 2–5. We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. To the extent that Appellant discusses claim 4, Appellant merely repeats (or references) the arguments challenging the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 17–18. Such a repeated (or referenced) argument is not an argument for “separate patentability.” Thus, Appellant does not present separate arguments for claim 4. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 7–14, Appellant merely recites the particular claim language and asserts the cited reference does not disclose the claim limitations. Without more, this fails to constitute an argument on the merits. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 7–14 further herein. B. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Fukuta, Lee, and Mansson. Final Act. 5. To the extent that Appellant discusses claims 2 and 5, Appellant merely references (or repeats) the arguments challenging the rejection of claims 1 and 4, from which claims 2 and 5 depend, respectively. Appeal Br. 17–18. Such a referenced (or repeated) argument is not an argument for Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 4 “separate patentability.” Thus, the rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the obviousness rejection of these claims further herein. OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Claim 1 – First Argument Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Pages 2-3 of the Final Office Action alleged that the [“wherein the user equipment logs only a latest multicast- broadcast single-frequency network measurement prior to an end of the logging period”] features are disclosed in paragraph [0107] of Lee, which recites “[f]or any logged cell (serving or neighbor), latest available measurement result made for cell reselection purposes is included in the log only if it has not already been reported.” However, while Lee discusses a “latest” available measurement result, this is unrelated to any multicast-broadcast single frequency network measurement prior to an end of the logging period, as recited in the independent claims. Appeal Br. 8–9. The Examiner responds: Examiner respectfully disagrees. A logging period is a time duration for logging results. Any logged measurement occurs in this time duration is prior to an end of the logging period. Lee discloses a MBMS service area including a plurality of MBSFN areas (Fig 7). Lee discloses that the UE performs measurement configuration procedure during a logging duration (64th and 67th paragraphs). Lee further discloses that a latest available measurement result is included in the log for reporting purpose (107th paragraph). This implies that the latest available measurement result is logged during the logging period and this Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 5 logged measurement result is prior to an end of the logging period. Ans. 7 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues: [T]he Examiner’s Answer provides a definition regarding for a logging period stating “[a] logging period is a time duration for logging results.” The Examiner’s Answer provides no source for its definition. . . . the Examiner’s Answer’s conclusion that “[the latest available measurement result is included in the log for reporting purposes] implies that the latest available measurement result is logged during the logging period and this logged measurement result is prior to an end of the logging period,” is not necessarily true. As discussed in paragraph [0015] of the specification “4 intervals may be needed to receive 5 samples. Therefore, the measurement period may span multiple logging periods.” Therefore, it is not inherent that the latest available measurement result is logged during the logging period. Appellant, therefore, respectfully submits that Fukuta in view of Lee fails to disclose or suggest the user equipment logs only a latest multicast-broadcast single-frequency network measurement prior to an end of the logging period, as recited in the present claims, and respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7-14 be withdrawn. Reply Br. 4–5 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, we disagree with Appellant’s assertion that there is no source for the Examiner’s definition of a logging period. Fukuta’s second embodiment (¶¶ 114–149, Figure 9) provides such support. See particularly Fukuta ¶¶ 120, 124, 125, 132. Second, we agree with Appellant to the extent that the Examiner’s statement, “[t]his implies that the latest available measurement result is logged during the logging period and this logged measurement result is prior Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 6 to an end of the logging period” (Ans. 7) is not fully supported by the references. However, we only agree with Appellant that logging a latest available measurement result is not inherent. We agree with the remainder of the Examiner’s reasoning that if there is logging of a latest available measurement result, then it must be “prior to an end of the logging period.” Third, while we agree with Appellant as to the one above point, ultimately, we disagree with Appellant’s overall position that Fukuta and Lee fail to teach or suggest logging only a latest measurement prior to an end of the logging period. The Examiner cites to paragraph 107 of Lee, which is more than sufficient to suggest logging a “latest” measurement3 (even though inherency is not shown). As to logging “only” the latest measurement, Appellant does not dispute that logging plural measurements was known in the art. An artisan would have immediately recognized the benefit of minimizing storage space by minimizing the number of logged measurements. Limiting logging to only a most recent measurement, is no more than logging the minimum number of measurements (one) while maintaining freshness (latest measurement). B. Claim 1 – Second Argument Also, Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. [T]he combination of Fukuta and Lee also fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the logged latest multicast-broadcast single- frequency network measurement is configured to support 3 “For any logged cell (serving or neighbor), latest available measurement result made for cell reselection purposes is included in the log only if it has not already been reported.” Lee ¶ 107 (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 7 verification of multicast-broadcast single-frequency network actual signal reception,” as recited in independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner responds: Independent claims 1 and 4 do not disclose how the measurement is configured to support verification of MBSFN signal reception. It is intended use. Ans. 7 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As to Appellant’s above contention, we note that “to support verification” in the claim 1 phrase “configured to support verification” is a statement of the intended use of the measurement. A statement of intended use cannot distinguish over the combined teachings of the applied references, which teach or suggest all of the recited limitations and are capable of performing the recited function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note that “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering- Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim's preamble,” In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987), a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. Id. Appeal 2019-005213 Application 14/851,092 8 CONCLUSION The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14 as obvious. We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–14. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 7–14 103 Fukuta, Lee 1, 4, 7–14 2, 5 103 Fukuta, Lee, Mansson 2, 5 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 5, 7– 14 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