Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 2020

2020000194 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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. 15/513,888 03/23/2017 Angelo Centonza P44691 US2 4346 152435 7590 06/30/2020 SAGE PATENT GROUP/ZACCO PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 EXAMINER GHOWRWAL, OMAR J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2020 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): outsourcing@zacco.com zaccoinstructions@sagepat.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANGELO CENTONZA and LARS-BERTIL OLSSON Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. PUR CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 59–81.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 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 “Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.” Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 1−58 were previously cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention “relate[s] generally to a wireless device[ and] a shared radio network node.” Spec. 1, ll. 5–7. Claim 59, reproduced below with emphasis, is illustrative of argued subject matter. 59. A method performed by a shared Radio Network Node (RNN) for managing overload in at least one core network, wherein the shared RNN is configured to serve a wireless device, wherein the wireless device and the shared RNN are configured to operate in a wireless communications network connected to the at least one core network, and wherein the method comprises: receiving a connection request from the wireless device, wherein the connection request comprises a mapping parameter configured to map to a Mobility Management Entity (MME) comprised in the at least one core network and connected to the shared RNN, wherein the MME is logically partitioned into several MMEs and configured to support multiple MME Codes (MMECs), each of which MMECs is pointing at a sharing operator, and wherein the mapping parameter comprises an MMEC configured to map to one of the MMECs supported by the MME; and rejecting or redirecting the connection request when the MMEC configured to map to one of the MMECs supported by the MME is associated with an overload action. Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). Rejections Claims 59–72 and 74–81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Punz (US 2014/0022996 A1; Jan. 23, 2014) and “Delay Tolerant Scheme for Extending Wait-timer,” Institute for Information Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 3 Industry, Coiler Corporation, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #72bis, R2-110104, Dublin, Ireland, 17-21 January 2010, 1–7 (herein “Coiler”). Final Act. 8–16. Claims 73 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Punz, Coiler, and Vikberg (WO 2010/080056 A1; July 15, 2010). Final Act. 16–17. OPINION For the following reasons, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Punz. We accordingly do not sustain the rejections of claims 59–81. All independent claims recite an argued “sharing operator.” Appeal Br. 9 (identifying the argued limitation), 16 (claim 59), 17–18 (claim 65), 19–20 (claim 74), 20–21 (claim 77). The Examiner reads the claimed sharing operator on Punz’s MME off/loading states (offloading and loading states). Ans. 4 (citing Punz’s Fig. 2). Appellant contends the claimed sharing operator cannot be read on Punz’s MME off/loading states because the Specification discloses the term sharing operator “is meant [as] an operator that share resources of equipment comprised in the communications system 100,110, e.g. the EPS in LTE, and/or resources handled by the equipment by one or more other operators.” Appeal Br. 9 (citing Specification 6–7). We are persuaded of error because the claimed sharing operator cannot be reasonably understood as an operating state (and the Examiner, therefore, cannot read the claimed sharing operator on Punz’s MME off/loading states). All independent claims recite the sharing operator within the following limitations (emphasis added): Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 4 receiving a connection request from the wireless device[ and] . . . map[ping] to a [MME] . . . connected to the shared RNN, wherein the MME is . . . support[ing] multiple [MMECs], each of which MMECs is pointing at a sharing operator, and wherein the mapping . . . [is] to one of the MMECs supported by the MME; Appeal Br. 16 (claim 59), 17–18 (claim 65), 19–20 (claim 74), 20–21 (claim 77). The above features are: MMECs that each point at a sharing operator; a MME connected to a shared RNN and supporting the MMECs; and a wireless device’s connection request that maps to the MME and, more specifically, to one of the MMECs. Our understanding of these features is aided by their disclosed purpose. See Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prod. Co. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 706–07 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Disclosed background and object of an invention can aid construction of disputed claim language.); but see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]ssert[ion] that an invention achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as . . . achieving all of the objectives.”). The Specification describes the features as permitting an RNN: (1) to predict the particular Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) that will be sought by a wireless device if/after the device’s request to connect with the RNN is granted; and (2) to determine so (a) solely from the request (i.e., before a consequent connection) and (b) despite that (i) the request does not state the particular PLMN and (ii) multiple PLMNs share the RNN (i.e., the particular PLMN is not ‘by-default’ evident from the requested RNN). Spec. 4, ll. 19–25; 6, ll. 18–23; 26, l. 20–27, l. 3. The Specification also describes the above PLMNs as a “sharing operator” of a RNN. Id. at 6, ll. 11–12, 18–23; 7, ll. 10–12; 26, ll. 30–35; 29, ll. 6–8; 30, ll. 4–6, 16–18, 32–33; 31, l. 2; 31, ll. 27–28; 32, ll. Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 5 15–17; see also Fig. 7 (illustrating operators that share an RNN (directly or indirectly via a CN)). In view of these disclosures, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand the claimed “sharing operator” and “shared RNN” as conveying an entity (e.g., PLMN) that shares the RNN with another entity (e.g., another PLMN). The argued definition of “sharing operator” further supports the above understanding. The corresponding Specification statements are (emphases and bracketed numerals added): [1] By the term ‘sharing operator’ when used herein is meant an operator that share[s] resources of equipment comprised in the communications system 100, 110 . . . and/or resources handled by the equipment by one or more other operators. [2] Further, a sharing operator of the core network 110 . . . is indicated by the MME Code value. [3] Furthermore, a sharing operator of the wireless communications network 100 . . . is accessing and using the same time frequency resources associated to a cell served by an core network node[.] Spec. 6, ll. 29–7, l. 3. We agree, with Appellant, that these statements define “sharing operator.” The first statement introduces the definition—by instructing “the term ‘sharing operator’ when used herein is meant an operator that . . .”—and then provides the principle part of the definition. The second and third statements continue the definition by immediately following the first statement and respectively beginning with “further” and “furthermore.” The three statements express that all uses of “sharing operator” adhere to its absolute description by the first statement and its Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 6 conditional descriptions by the second and third statements.3 The three statements also plainly concern a PLMN-type “operator” of the invention because the invention’s above-discussed PLMN and objective (see supra 5) are described by the immediately preceding paragraph. Spec. 6, ll. 18–28. In light of all the above, we construe the claimed “sharing operator” as an entity (i.e., a thing itself) that shares communication resources. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that the “sharing operator” is a “state” (i.e., a condition of a thing) of sharing. Final Act. 4;4 see also STATE, 3 That is, all uses of “sharing operator” must: comply with the first statement by sharing resources of the system 100, 110; comply with the second statement if the operator is part of the disclosed core network 110; and/or comply with the third statement if the operator is part of the disclosed communications system 100. See Spec. 10, ll. 1–6, 14–17 (describing the communications system 100 and core network 110 (which “may be comprised in” the system 100)). 4 The record confirms the Examiner reads the claimed sharing operator on an off/loading state of Punz’s MMEs—not on one such MME itself. Final Act. 3–4, 10. The record also confirms the Examiner has not considered whether the above definition of “sharing operator,” i.e., the Specification’s above three statements, would patentably distinguish the invention over the applied prior art. Advisory Act. (Jan. 10, 2019), cont’n sheet (addressing a pre-appeal argument that the statements define “sharing operator” and responding that such a definition, if required (as it is now), would “necessitat[e] a further search and/or consideration” of the prior art); see also Response to [Final] Office Action (Dec. 28, 2018) 12–14. 4 The record confirms the Examiner reads the claimed sharing operator on an off/loading state of Punz’s MMEs—not on one such MME itself. Final Act. 3–4, 10. The record also confirms the Examiner has not considered whether the above definition of “sharing operator,” i.e., the Specification’s above three statements, would patentably distinguish the invention over the applied prior art. Advisory Act. (Jan. 10, 2019), cont’n sheet (addressing a pre-appeal argument that the statements define “sharing operator” and responding that such a definition, if required (as it is now), would Appeal 2020-000194 Application 15/513,888 7 Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/state# (“the condition of a . . . thing”). Coiler fails to address the deficiency of Punz. See Final Act. 11. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record and therefore we reverse the Examiner obviousness rejection of independent claim 59, as well as, independent claims 65, 74 and 77, commensurate in scope. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 60–64, 66–73, 75, 76 and 78–81. We reverse the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 73 because Vikberg fails to address the deficiency of the Punz/Coiler combination. See Final Act. 17. OVERALL CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 59–81. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed 59–72, 74–81 103 Punz, Coiler 59–72, 74–81 73 103 Punz, Coiler, Vikberg 73 Overall Outcome 59–81 REVERSED “necessitat[e] a further search and/or consideration” of the prior art); see also Response to [Final] Office Action (Dec. 28, 2018) 12–14.