TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 29, 20212020000911 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/895,336 12/02/2015 Bengt Lindoff P47706US1 1079 152435 7590 09/29/2021 SAGE PATENT GROUP/ZACCO PO BOX 30789 RALEIGH, NC 27622-0789 EXAMINER LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2021 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): 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 BENGT LINDOFF, PETER ALRIKSSON, and JOAKIM AXMON Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, 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 18–34 (see Final Act. 1).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (Appeal Br. 2). 2 Claims 1–17 have been cancelled (Final Act. 2; Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for cell selection. Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 18. A method of operating a wireless communication device operably connectable to a first cell of a first public land mobile network (PLMN) applying a first radio access technology (RAT), the method comprising: detecting a second cell of a second PLMN applying a second RAT; determining whether a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell, wherein the network relation is determined to exist when network nodes of the first and second cells have a common backhaul or core network; performing a connection set up to the first cell in response to determining that a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell; performing the connection set up to the second cell in response determining that there does not exist a network relation between the first cell and the second cell. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hsu et al. US 2011/0207453 A1 Aug. 25, 2011 Klingenbrunn US 2012/0302241 A1 Nov. 29, 2012 Yang US 2016/0057686 A1 Feb. 25, 2016 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 18–21, 23–30, 32–34 103 Hsu 22, 31 103 Hsu, Yang, and Klingenbrunn Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 3 We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)). OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claim 18–21, 23–25, 28–30, 32, and 33 Appellant contends the invention as recited in claim 18, is not obvious over Hsu and Yang (Appeal Br. 8–10). The issue presented by the arguments is whether the combination of Hsu and Yang teaches or suggests “performing a connection set up to the first cell in response to determining that a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell” responsive to “determining whether a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell, wherein the network relation is determined to exist when network nodes of the first and second cells have a common backhaul or core network,” as recited in claim 18. Appellant argues, Hsu fails to teach the disputed limitation because “Hsu does not address the particular circumstance of performing a connection setup at all” and, in particular, performing “the claimed connection setup in response to determining that a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell” (Appeal Br. 9). Rather, according to Appellant, “Hsu focuses on how to avoid issues when making measurements on different networks using a common antenna port” (id.). Appellant further contends, “[w]hile the Examiner concedes Hsu fails to explicitly teach the claimed connection setup, the Examiner asserts Yang solves this deficiency (especially in light of Hsu’s alleged implicit teachings)” (Appeal Br. 9). According to Appellant, “Yang teaches cell Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 4 selection responsive to how a signal quality of one of the cells compares to one or more reselection thresholds, not responsive to whether a network relation exists between a first and a second cell, where the network relation is determined to exist when network nodes of the first and second cells have a common backhaul or core network, as recited in independent claim 18” (Appeal Br. 9–10). Initially, we note Appellant’s Specification does not define explicitly, the term “connection setup” (see generally Spec.). The Examiner interprets the claims, using a broad, but reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification (Ans. 21). Nonetheless, we look to the claim recitation in considering Appellant’s contentions. The Examiner relies on Hsu to teach, “determining whether a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell” (Final Act. 3 (citing Hsu, ¶¶ 78–79, 95–96, Figs. 17–19, Figs. 35A–35B)). Hsu teaches “the 2G and 3G channel activities are interfaced so that the 2G and 3G modules may use the shared antenna in turn to perform the corresponding channel activities” (Hsu ¶ 78). Hsu further teaches “after the 3G module completes the PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network) search (Step S1901), the 2G module or the arbiter may check whether a 2G measurement activity for the 2G PLM search is required (Step S1903)” (id. ¶ 79). The Examiner then determines Hsu implicitly discloses “wherein the network relation is determined to exist when network nodes of the first and second cells have a common backhaul or core network” and performing a connection set up in response to the determination, as recited (Final Act. 3). The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Hsu implicitly teaches these limitations. Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 5 The Examiner determines, however, although Hsu fails to explicitly disclose these limitations, Yang teaches these limitations (id. at 4). Yang teaches a core network (Yang ¶ 22). Yang further teaches the user equipment (UE) locates one or more 4G cells and, once a first 4G cell is located, the first 4G cell broadcasts information including the cell reselection service cell threshold (id. ¶ 43). The UE then moves to the first 4G cell and “determines whether the signal quality of the [first] cell [ ] is above the threshold” (id.). Yang further teaches “[i]f the signal quality is not above the threshold, the UE 502 returns to 2G/3G cell 504 at time 520 . . . If the signal quality of the second LTE cell 508 is greater than the threshold, the UE 502 camps on the second 4G cell 508 at time 526” (id. ¶¶ 43–45). Appellant further contends “because the UE of Yang is already camped on the 2G/3G cell, when the UE opts to stay/return to the 2G/3G cell, the UE is not performing any type of connection setup responsive to the threshold test because the UE is already connected to the 2G/3G cell” (Appeal Br. 10). Therefore, according to Appellant “Yang does not involve performing a connection setup to a second cell, much less in response to determining that there does not exist a network relation between the first and second cells” (Appeal Br. 10). We are persuaded by Appellant’s contention of Examiner error. Although, we agree with the Examiner that the relied upon paragraphs of Yang disclose a core network and a relation between the cells, the Examiner has not identified where Yang teaches performing a connection setup to the first or second cell, in response to determining that a network relation exists or does not exist between the first cell and the second cell, as recited in the claim (see Final Act. 4). As recited in the claim, “the network Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 6 relation is determined to exist when network nodes of the first and second cells have a common backhaul or core network” (Claims 18, 26–27, and 34). The Examiner however, cites Yang to teach selecting a cell and then, based on the signal quality, camping on a first or second 4G cell (Final Act. 4). Specifically, as noted by Appellant, the cited portions of Yang teaches “cell selection responsive to how a signal quality of one of the cells compares to one or more reselection thresholds” (Appeal Br. 9–10). Thus, we are persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner has not shown Yang teaches the disputed limitations. The Examiner has not explained either, how the combination of Hsu and Yang teach “performing a connection set up” in response to determining that a network relation exists or does not exist (see generally Final Act.; Ans.). Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show the combination of Hsu and Yang teaches or suggests “performing a connection set up to the first cell in response to determining that a network relation exists between the first cell and the second cell” or “performing a connection set up to the second cell in response [to] determining that there does not exist a network relation between the first cell and the second cell,” as recited in claim 18. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. We are persuaded the Examiner has failed to show the combination of Hsu and Yang teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 18 and commensurately recited in independent claims 26, 27, and 34. Dependent claims 19–21, 23–25, 28–30, 32, and 33 thus stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 7 claims 1–21, 23–30, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Hsu and Yang. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 22 and 31 Appellant argues claims 22 and 31 based on the arguments set forth for claims 18 and 26, respectively (Appeal Br. 12). For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has persuaded us the combination of Hsu and Yang fails to teach claims 18 and 26. The Examiner has not shown Klingenbrunn cures the deficiencies of Hsu and Yang. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of Hsu, Yang, and Klingenbrunn teaches, suggests, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in dependent claims 22 and 31. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 22 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Hsu, Yang, and Klingenbrunn. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18–34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-000911 Application 14/895,336 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 18–21, 23– 30, 32–34 103 Hsu 18–21, 23– 30, 32–34 22, 31 103 Hsu, Yang, Klingenbrunn 22, 31 Overall Outcome 18–34 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation