TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2021001242 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/117,702 08/09/2016 Mattias TAN BERGSTRÖM 3602-1273-US2 9356 6449 7590 03/30/2022 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. 607 14TH STREET, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER VU, MICHAEL T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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): PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTIAS TAN BERGSTRÖM and TOMAS HEDBERG ____________ Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-4, 212, 23-26, 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 74-77, and 80-84. Appeal Br. 42-51. (Claims Appendix). Claims 5-22, 27-44, 50-52, 57-60, 63, 66-73, 78, and 79 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ), Stockholm, Sweden. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claim 21 has been canceled (Appeal Br. 43), nor does the Examiner reject this Claim. See Final Act. 2. Therefore, we do not reach the merits of Claim 21. Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 2 We REVERSE.3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method and apparatus that schedules and manages a background task for device. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1, 23, 45, 53, 61, and 74 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method in a target base station that is operating according to a first radio access technology (RAT), the target base station controlling a first cell in a first network, the method comprising: the target base station receiving a handover message for a terminal device, the handover message indicating a request to handover the terminal device from a source base station to the target base station, wherein the source base station is also operating according to the first RAT; after receiving the handover message for the terminal device, the target base station obtaining access network selection information for use by the terminal device in performing one or both of access network selection and traffic steering, wherein the access network selection information was provided to the terminal device from the source base station or another base station; the target base station determining whether or not the terminal device should continue to use the access network 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 19, 2020, “Appeal. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed December 9, 2020, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed October 9, 2020, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed January 31, 2020, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed August 9, 2016, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 3 selection information while the terminal device is being served by the target base station; and after performing the determining step, the target base station providing to the terminal device an indication that indicates one of: 1) that the target base station has determined that the terminal device should continue to use the access network selection information while the terminal device is being served by the target base station or 2) that the target base station has determined that the terminal device should not continue to use the access network selection information while the terminal device is being served by the target base station. Prior Art Name4 Reference Date Dimou US 2011/0103347 A1 May 5, 2011 Hyun US 2013/0183975 A1 July 18, 2013 Huang5 US 8,792,895 B2 July 29, 2014 Jung US 2015/0373603 A1 Dec. 24, 2015 REJECTIONS6 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1-4, 23-26, 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 74-77, and 80-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jung, Hyun, and Dimou. Final Act. 3-21. 4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 5 The Examiner does not cite Huang in either the header, or the body, of the rejection. However, the Examiner cites Huang in the section marked “Response to Arguments.” See Final Act. 21 (R. 155); Final Act. 25 (R. 159). Thus, we find Huang is not a reference against the present claims. 6 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 4 ANALYSIS 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), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1-4, 23-26, 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 74-77, AND 80-84: OBVIOUSNESS OVER JUNG, HYUN, AND DIMOU. Claims 1-4, 23-26, and 82-84. Appellant contends Claim 1 is patentable because the Art of Record fails to teach: the target base station determining whether or not the terminal device should continue to use the access network selection information while the terminal device is being served by the target base station. Appeal Br. 11 (quoting Claim 1). Independent Claim 23 contains commensurate recitations. Appellant contends the Examiner cites Dimou, but neither Jung nor Hyun, to supply this teaching. Id. (citing Final Act. 5). Appellant argues each of Dimou, Paragraphs 31, 45, 51, and 52 fails to teach “whether or not Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 5 the terminal device should continue to use the access network selection information,” as recited in Claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-14. Appellant contends independent Claim 23 is patentable in view of the arguments presented for Claim 1. Appeal Br. 17. The Examiner finds Dimou teaches: “[w]hen the serving base station receives the measurement report it can decide to handover the mobile terminal to the target base station, in which reads on whether or not the terminal device should continue.” Ans. 3 (citing Dimou ¶ 31) (The Examiner does not explain what is continued). The Examiner finds Dimou teaches about the HANDOVER COMMAND. Ans. 4 (citing Dimou ¶¶ 9- 10). Appellant argues the cited portion of Dimou relates to handover communications between the target, and serving, base stations, but fails to teach “whether or not the terminal device should continue to use the access network selection information,” as recited in Claim 1. Reply Br. 3. In agreement with Appellant, we find no disclosure, in the cited portions of Dimou, of whether “whether or not the terminal device should continue to use the access network selection information,” as recited in Claim 1. Thus, with respect to Claims 1-4, 23-26, and 82-84, we are persuaded of error. 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, and 65. Appellant contends Claim 45 is patentable because the Art of Record fails to teach: the source base station . . . providing to the target base station access network selection information for use by the terminal in performing one or both of access network selection and traffic steering, as recited in independent Claim 45. Appeal Br. 17. Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 6 Independent Claims 53 and 61 contain commensurate limitations. Appellant contends the arguments in favor of independent Claim 45 apply to independent Claims 53 and 61. Appeal Br. 24-25. The Examiner finds Jung teaches the disputed limitation by disclosing a method in a source base station in a first network that is operating according to a first radio access technology (RAT). Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds Jung does not explicitly teach an access network selection in a wireless communication system, but that this teaching is found in Hyun. Id. at 11. Appellant contends that none of Jung paragraphs 5, 10, 27, 98-101, 182-186, or 249, teach this limitation, contrary to the Examiner’s finding. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Final Act.10). The Answer finds Dimou teaches providing to the target base station access network selection information for use by the terminal. Ans. 6 (citing Dimou ¶¶ 31, 50-52). The Answer further finds Jung teaches a handover process that includes traffic steering, wherein the source base station determines handover to a neighboring cell and the base station included in a target cell becomes a target base station. Id. The Final rejection was over Jung and Hyun; the Answer is over Jung and Dimou. Appellant’s Reply notes the Examiner’s altered grounds of rejection, but contends the new combination of Dimou and Jung still fail to teach the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 11. Appellant argues Dimou discloses a mobile terminal will “transmit a measurement report to its serving base station” when the mobile terminal detects that a difference in signal strength between the serving base station and a target base station “is equal or greater than the handover margin” for a first “time interval.” Reply Br. 12 R. 28 Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 7 (quoting Dimou ¶ 31) (cited by the Examiner). But Appellants argue, none of the cited disclosure suggests the disputed limitation. Id. Appellant contends Dimou further discloses “[t]he target base station may further use information on the source cell served by the serving base station” and a “HO REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGE 79 is transmitted to the serving base station 71, followed by the handover command (HO COMMAND).” Reply Br. 13. (quoting Dimou ¶¶ 51, 52). Again, Appellants argue, none of the cited disclosure suggests the disputed limitation. Id. We fail to see how the cited disclosure teaches “target base station access network selection information for use by the terminal in performing one or both of access network selection and traffic steering,” as recited in independent Claims 45, 53, and 63. Thus, with respect to Claims 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, and 65, we are persuaded of error. Claims 74-77, 80, and 81. Appellant contends Claim 61 is patentable because the prior Art does not teach or suggest: “the terminal device receiving from the network node an indication of the suitability of the access network selection information,” as recited in independent Claims 61 and 74. Appeal Br. 29, 31. The Examiner finds Hyun teaches an access network selection method in a wireless communication system that supports simultaneous attachment to at least two networks in a same area, including detecting an event triggering access network reselection of the terminal and selecting a target access network for the terminal. Ans. 12 (citing Hyun ¶¶ 9-10). Appeal 2021-001242 Application 15/117,702 8 Appellant argues the Examiner merely quotes from the references, but provides no explanation as to how the language of the limitation reads on the reference disclosure. Reply Br. 25. Our reading of the cited passage of Hyun fails to find disclosure relating to the “suitability of the access network selection information,” as recited in Claim 74. Thus, with respect to Claims 74-77, 80, and 81, we are persuaded of error. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-4, 23-26, 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 74-77, 80-84 103 Jung, Hyun, Dimou 1-4, 23-26, 45-49, 53-56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 74-77, 80-84 REVERSED