TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 29, 2021

2020000911 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 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.
14/895,336 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