Haitao Li et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020000735 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 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.
14/401,438 11/14/2014 Haitao Li NC78352-US-PCT 7955
12358 7590 05/03/2021
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAITAO LI, DALSGAARD LARS, and
YANG LIU
____________________

Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 36–37 and 39–55. Claims 1–35 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Nokia Corporation as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
follows:
A method, an apparatus and a corresponding computer program
product are proposed. Wherein one of the method according to
one embodiment of the invention determines at least one cell in
a network sharing context of at least one user equipment with at
least one other cell within the network. Then creates at least one
measurement configuration being used by the at least one user
equipment, wherein the at least one measurement configuration
indicates at least to the at least one user equipment that it can
decide whether to perform cell change without transmitting back
its measurement report to its serving cell. Then method further
transmits the created at least one measurement configuration to
the at least one user equipment.
Abstract.2
Independent claim 42, which is reproduced below, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal:
42. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a user equipment, at least one measurement
configuration, wherein the at least one measurement
configuration is created at a network that includes a first cell and
a second cell, wherein the first cell comprises a current serving
cell of the user equipment, wherein the first cell shares, with the
second cell, a context of the user equipment upon the user
equipment being connected to the first cell, wherein the sharing
of the context enables a performance of an autonomous handover
from the first cell to the second cell without transmitting a

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 16, 2019
(“Final Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 12, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed Nov. 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Sept. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed Nov. 14, 2014
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

3
measurement report to the first cell, and wherein the at least one
measurement configuration is transmitted to the user equipment
to inform the user equipment, prior to the user equipment
performing a handover, that the user equipment can perform the
autonomous handover from the first cell to the second cell
without transmitting the measurement report to the first cell;
performing, based at least on the at least one measurement
configuration, a measurement of a signal quality of the second
cell; and
in response to the measurement indicating that the second
cell provides a better signal quality than the first cell, performing
the autonomous handover to the second cell, wherein the
autonomous handover to the second cell is performed without
transmitting the measurement report to the first cell, and wherein
the performance of the autonomous handover changes the current
serving cell of the user equipment from the first cell to the second
cell.
Appeal Br. 25 (Claims App.).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 42–55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Alpert et al. (US 2009/0290555 A1; published Nov. 26, 2009)
(“Alpert”). Final Act. 3–12.
Claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Alpert in view of Sayeedi (US 2008/0139205 A1;
published June 12, 2008) (“Sayeedi”).
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Alpert, Sayeedi, and Pani et al. (US 2010/0323633 A1;
published Dec. 23, 2010) (“Pani”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 36–55 in light
of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. See
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

4
Appeal Br. 11–27; Reply Br. 5–11. Any other arguments Appellant could
have made, but chose not to make, are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive of error by the Examiner. Unless otherwise
indicated, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings of
fact and conclusions as set forth in the Final Office Action from which this
appeal is taken and in the Answer. Final Act. 3–19; Ans. 3–22. We provide
the following explanation for emphasis.
Claims 42–55
Appellant argues claims 42–55 as a group focusing on independent
claim 42. See Appeal Br. 11–27. Accordingly, we select claim 42 as
representative, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 42. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner rejects claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Alpert. Final Act. 3–7; see also Ans. 3–17. Appellant argues
that Alpert does not disclose or suggest (1) “an autonomous handover in
which a user equipment changes its serving cell without sending a
measurement report,” (2) “an autonomous handover is enabled by a
first cell in a network sharing, with a second cell in the network, a
context of a user equipment when the user equipment connects to the
first cell,” and (3) “transmitting a measurement configuration to inform
a user equipment, prior to the user equipment performing a handover,
that the user equipment is able [to] perform the autonomous handover.”
Appeal Br. 13–18; Reply Br. 5–9. We consider each of these arguments
below, but we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred.
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

5
1. “an autonomous handover in which a user equipment changes its
serving cell without sending a measurement report”
Appellant argues that Alpert does not disclose or suggest “an
autonomous handover in which a user equipment changes its serving
cell without sending a measurement report.” See Appeal Br. 13–15. In
particular, Appellant argues that, at best, an Alpert mobile station is “merely
able to associate autonomously” with one or more target base stations to
“measure parameters and establish a bidirectional link to exchange
information with [a] base station,” and the Examiner is conflating the
claimed “autonomous handover” with Alpert’s “association opportunity.”
Id. at 13 (citing Alpert ¶ 87); see also Reply Br. 5–7 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 26, 87,
134, 137, Fig. 13). Appellant also argues that nowhere, including the
autonomous handover block 420 of Figure 13, does Alpert indicate that a
mobile station is able to perform a handover autonomously, which would
require the mobile station “to change its current serving cell from a first cell
to a second cell without transmitting a measurement report back to the first
cell.” Appeal Br. 13–14 (citing Alpert, ¶¶ 134, 137, Fig. 13).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Alpert discloses “a multi-cell autonomous
association execution (handover) state 174” (see Ans. 3 (citing Alpert ¶ 96)),
and, in Figure 13, an “autonomous handover block” to initiate a handover
from a current base station (i.e., “first cell”) to a target base station (i.e.,
“second cell) (id. at 6 (citing Alpert Fig. 13)). As the Examiner also finds,
Alpert states, in describing Figure 13, that “autonomous handover block 420
functions to perform handover initiation (block 422) and selection of the
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

6
TBS3 from amongst the candidate base stations (block 424).” Id. at 4 (citing
Alpert ¶ 137). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Alpert
discloses “autonomous handover as a mobile station changing its current
serving cell from a first cell to a second cell without sending a measurement
report back to the first cell.” Id. at 6 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 133, 134; Fig. 13). In
that regard, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Alpert discloses the
“MS[4] does not need to send associated reports [i.e., the claimed
‘measurement report’] to the SBS” because the candidate base station
selection and handover initiation process shown in Figure 13 “depends on
the parameter measurements and samples obtained during the discovery,
detection, decoding and association method” of Figures 12A and 12B.
Ans. 6 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 133, 134); see also Ans. 4 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 133,
134). In other words, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Alpert discloses
a MS using autonomous association mechanism to perform autonomous
handover without sending back [an] associated report [i.e., a measurement
report] to the serving base station.” Id. at 4.
Second, we do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner is
conflating the claimed “autonomous handover” with Alpert’s “association
opportunity.” Instead, as indicated in the discussion above, we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that “Alpert discloses both the autonomous
association and autonomous handover.” Ans. 3, 6–7 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 102,
113, 137, Fig. 13; see also Alpert ¶¶ 26, 71, 96). Importantly, as the
Examiner also finds, Alpert states that “use of the autonomous association

3 TBS is Alpert’s acronym for “target base station.” See Alpert ¶¶ 15, 53.
4 MS is Alpert’s acronym for “mobile station.” See Alpert ¶¶ 4, 53. Alpert
also explains that “MS and user equipment (UE)” mean the same thing.
Alpert ¶ 64.
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

7
mechanism increases the probability of performing a successful handover.”
Id. at 3 (citing Alpert ¶ 102).
Thus, for these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error, and
we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Alpert discloses an autonomous
handover in which the user equipment or mobile station changes its current
serving cell from a first cell to a second cell without transmitting a
measurement report back to the first cell. See also id. at 7–8.
2. “an autonomous handover is enabled by a first cell in a network
sharing, with a second cell in the network, a context of a user equipment
when the user equipment connects to the first cell”
Appellant argues that Alpert does not disclose or suggest:
a network in which a first cell shares, with a second cell in the
network, the context of a mobile station upon the mobile station
connecting to the first cell to at least enable the mobile station to
perform a handover from the first cell to the second cell without
transmitting a measurement report back to the first cell.
Appeal Br. 16. According to Appellant, “an Alpert cell shares the context of
a mobile station with another Alpert cell only after the mobile station has
already initiated a handover.” Id. (citing Alpert ¶ 63) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Paragraph 63 of Alpert states that [t]he handover process is a transition from
the SBS to a selected target base station,” and that “[a]s part of the handover
process, the SBS transfers the connection context to the TBS which becomes
the new serving base station before, during and/or after the handover is
complete.” Based on Alpert’s paragraph 63, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Alpert discloses:
a network in which a first cell shares, with a second cell in the
network, the context of a mobile station upon the mobile station
connecting to the first cell to at least enable the mobile station to
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

8
perform a handover from the first cell to the second cell without
transmitting a measurement report back to the first cell. That is,
as the mobile station is connected to the serving base station
(SBS) (i.e., the mobile station connecting to the first cell), the
SBS shares the connection context (i.e., the context of a mobile
station) with a target base station (TBS) for the mobile station to
perform autonomous association with the TBS, then to perform
autonomous handover to the target base station. That is, by
sharing the connection context the serving base station provides
an opportunity for the mobile station to acquire necessary
connectivity parameters with a candidate/potential target base
station in order for the mobile station to make target base station
selection to perform an autonomous handover.
Ans. 9 (citing Alpert ¶ 63).
Thus, for these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Alpert
discloses “an autonomous handover is enabled by a first cell in a network
sharing, with a second cell in the network, a context of a user equipment
when the user equipment connects to the first cell,” rather than after the user
equipment has initiated a handover, as Appellant argues, to enable the
mobile station to perform a handover from the first cell to the second cell
without transmitting a measurement report back to the first cell.
3. “transmitting a measurement configuration to inform a user
equipment, prior to the user equipment performing a handover, that the
user equipment is able [to] perform the autonomous handover”
Appellant argues that the Alpert fails to disclose or suggest
“transmitting, to a user equipment, a measurement configuration to inform
that the user equipment is able to perform an autonomous handover before
the user equipment performs a handover.” Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 7–
9. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner did not adequately
address this claim limitation, that the Examiner conflates Alpert’s network
allocating measurement and association opportunities with the claimed
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

9
measurement configuration, and that nothing in Alpert supports the
Examiner’s conclusion that Alpert discloses this limitation. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 13–17. First, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Alpert discloses “receiving, at a user equipment, at least
one measurement configuration” because paragraph 85 of Alpert states that
“[n]ormally, networks allocate measurement and association opportunities to
the mobile station,” which can be explicit or implicit as a function of the
protocol. Ans. 13 (citing Alpert ¶ 85). We also agree with the Examiner’s
finding that paragraph 71, and Figure 5, of Alpert disclose that the mobile
station “performs the autonomous association mechanism” and “[a]t some
point . . . the measurements of the signal strength and/or other parameters
and the information exchanged with the base station #2 cause the connection
of the mobile station to switch from base station #1 to base station #2.” Id.
(citing Alpert ¶ 71, Fig. 5).
Thus, we further agree with the Examiner’s finding that “by
[performing] an autonomous association and . . . [receiving] a measurement
configuration,” the mobile station is informed that it is able to perform an
autonomous handover because the purpose of the autonomous association
and allocating a measurement configuration is to lead the mobile station to
acquire necessary connectivity parameters to select a suitable
candidate/potential target base station and to perform an autonomous
handover without sending back an associated report. Id. at 14–17 (citing
Alpert ¶¶ 71, 85, 133, 134 137; Fig. 5).
Accordingly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, we find that
Alpert discloses “transmitting a measurement configuration to inform a user
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

10
equipment, prior to the user equipment performing a handover, that the user
equipment is able [to] perform the autonomous handover.”
4. Conclusion
Thus, for these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in:
(1) finding that Alpert discloses the disputed limitations of claim 42; and (2)
concluding that Alpert anticipates the subject matter of claim 42 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 42, as
well as dependent claims 43–55.
Claims 36, 37, and 39–41
Claim 36 is an independent claim, and claims 37 and 39–41 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 36. Appellant argues claims 36, 37, and
39–41 as a group focusing on claim 36. See Appeal Br. 18–21; Reply Br. 9–
11. Accordingly, we select claim 36 as representative, and the remaining
claims stand or fall with claim 36. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
The Examiner rejects claims 36, 37, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for obviousness over Alpert and Sayeedi. Final Act. 13–18. In
regard to claim 36, the Examiner relies on Sayeedi as teaching “at least one
processor” and “at least one memory comprising computer program code.”
Id. at 16 (citing Sayeedi ¶ 26, Fig. 2). Appellant argues that even assuming
that Sayeedi discloses the claimed processor and memory including
computer program code, Sayeedi does not cure any of the defects in Alpert
discussed in regard to claim 42. Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 9–11.
Appellant also argues that “[the] Examiner also did not provide any
evidentiary support that a person having ordinary skill in the art is capable of
bridging these gaps in the combination of Alpert and Sayeedi based on
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

11
ordinar[]y creativity alone.” Id. at 19–20 (citing DSS Tech. Management,
Inc. v. Apple Inc., 885 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, Appellant’s
argument that Sayeedi does not cure any of the defects in Alpert discussed in
regard to claim 42 is not persuasive because, as discussed supra in regard to
claim 42, there are no defects or deficiencies in the disclosures of Alpert
with respect to the disputed features and limitations of claim 42. Second,
Appellant’s argument, based on DSS, that the Examiner failed to provide
evidence that a skilled artisan would have been capable of “bridging these
gaps” in the combination of Alpert and Sayeedi based on ordinary creativity
alone is not persuasive. In DSS, the court explained that ordinary creativity
and/or common sense may be used to supply a missing claim element only
when the missing element is “unusually simple and the technology
particularly straightforward.” DSS, 885 F.3d at 1374.
We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner relied on ordinary
creativity and/or common sense to establish the obviousness of any of the
disputed claim features. Rather, as we explained above, Alpert teaches these
disputed features.5 See also Ans. 21–22 (citing Alpert ¶¶ 102, 113, 137,
133, 134). No reliance on ordinary creativity or common sense was
necessary to bridge a gap, because, as discussed above, Alpert discloses all

5 The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Alpert discloses claim 36’s
limitation of “identify a first cell in a network which shares, with a second
cell within the network, a context.” Final Act. 13 (citing Alpert ¶ 63).
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred by finding that claim 36 does
not require “the identification of a first cell” (Reply Br. 10), in response to
Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 19), is unavailing
because the Examiner correctly concludes that claim 36 does not recite “the
identification of a first cell.”
Appeal 2020-000735
Application 14/401,438

12
of the disputed claim features. Moreover, Appellant has not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of Alpert and Sayeedi. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the
art.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36, and
claims 37 and 39–41, under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Alpert
and Sayeedi.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 36, 37, and 39–55.
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
42–55 102(b) Alpert 42–55
36, 37, 39,
40
103(a) Alpert, Sayeedi 36, 37, 39,
40

41 103(a) Alpert, Sayeedi,
Pani
41
Overall
Outcome
36, 37, 39–
55

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED