Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

14030450 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 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.
14/030,450 09/18/2013 David George Butler P11988 5174
136714 7590 06/02/2020
Pierce Atwood LLP (Attn: Amazon Docketing)
Attn: Patent Docketing (Amazon)
100 Summer Street
Suite 2250
Boston, MA 02110
EXAMINER
ERB, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
patent@pierceatwood.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID GEORGE BUTLER, JOHN CHRISTOPHER O’HARE,
SREEKAR RAMACHANDRA TANUKU, and ARVIND THIAGARAJAN
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–22. See Final

1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 18, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed January 2, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action,
mailed February 21, 2020 (“Advisory Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed April 19,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 11, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and Reply Brief, filed September 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Amazon
Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
2
Act. 1. Claims 9 and 17 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to confirming a delivery location using radio
fingerprinting. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with claim element
labels added in brackets and disputed limitations emphasized in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for confirming that a portable computing device is
at a desired location, comprising:
[(i)] receiving, at a first time and from the portable
computing device via a network, a first message representing a
first wireless signal fingerprint corresponding to a first location
of the portable computing device, the portable computing device
being configured to detect one or more first wireless signals at
the first location and determine the first wireless signal
fingerprint based on first information about the one or more first
wireless signals, the first information including one or more of a
signal identifier, a signal strength, or a signal frequency of the
one or more first wireless signals;
[(ii)] identifying second information about one or more
second wireless signals detected at a second time at the desired
location, wherein the second time is previous to the first time;
[(iii)] comparing the first wireless signal fingerprint and a
second wireless signal fingerprint, the second wireless signal
fingerprint being based at least in part on the second information;
[(iv)] determining, based upon a result of the comparing,
a score representing a probability that the first location is the
desired location;
[(v)] determining that the score is above a threshold;
[(vi)] determining that the first location is the desired
location based at least in part on the score being above the
threshold; and
[(vii)] sending a second message to the portable
computing device so as to cause the portable computing device
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
3
to perform an action corresponding to the portable computing
device being at the desired location.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Orwant et al. US 2005/0227711 A1 Oct. 13, 2005
Mangan et al. US 2006/0238334 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Halcrow et al. US 2007/0167174 Al July 19, 2007
Lopez Lopez (“Lopez”) US 2013/0090086 A1 Apr. 11, 2013
Jan et al. US 2013/0143600 A1 June 6, 2013
Valaee et al. US 2014/0011518 A1 Jan. 9, 2014
Jagannath US 2014/0018096 A1 Jan. 16, 2014

REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannath and Lopez. Final Act. 12–19.
Claims 2, 7, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, and Mangan. Final
Act. 19–21.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, and Jan. Final Act. 21–22.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, Mangan, and Halcrow. Final Act. 22–23.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, and Halcrow. Final Act. 23.

3 The rejections of claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in
the Final Rejection have been withdrawn by the Examiner. Advisory Act.
1–2.
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
4
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, Mangan, and Orwant. Final
Act. 23–25.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).

OPINION
The Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds the combination of Jagannath and Lopez teaches
the subject matter of claim 1. The Examiner relies on Jagannath for claim
elements (i) and (iii), and much of claim elements (ii), (iv), and (vii). Final
Act. 13. Acknowledging Jagannath discloses known mapped locations
rather than the recited desired location (e.g., a destination) of claim elements
(ii), (iv), and (vii), the Examiner applies Lopez’s method for confirming that
a portable computing device is at a desired location for curing the noted
deficiency. See id. at 13–14. The Examiner also relies on Lopez for
describing the purpose of the claimed method, as recited in the preamble and
claim elements (v) and (vi). Id. In particular, the Examiner finds Lopez’s
disclosure of “validating user-provided location for set-up of emergency
calls or, in general, of emergency services” teaches or suggests “confirming
that a portable computing device is at a desired location” as recited in the
preamble. Id. at 13 (citing Lopez ¶ 20). The Examiner explains “the
location is desired because it is desired to perform the service at the
location.” Id. at 14. Further, the Examiner finds Lopez’s disclosure that
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
5
“[i]f the probability that the user equipment is connected to the access point
from the location provided to the network is higher than a given threshold,
then the user-provided location is positively validated” teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations of claim elements (v) and (vi), i.e., “determining that
the score is above a threshold” and “determining that the first location is the
desired location based at least in part on the score being above the
threshold.” Id. (citing Lopez ¶ 28).

Appellant contends the claims are distinguishable over the prior art,
arguing the invention focuses on “confirming that a device is at a desired
location by determining whether wireless signal information acquired at two
different times exceed a threshold degree of similarity.” Appeal Br. 19. In
contrast, according to Appellant, “Jagannath teaches estimating the current
location of a device by evaluating a wireless fingerprint the device acquires
against entries in a previously-acquired wireless fingerprint map for a
region.” Id. (citing Jagannath ¶ 29). In particular, Appellant identifies
Jagannath’s deficiencies, arguing that “[t]he Jagannath system does not
make a determination that the device is, in fact, at a desired location. It
follows that the Jagannath system also fails to associate that initial wireless
fingerprint in any way with the desired location.” Id.
Appellant contends Lopez does not remedy Jagannath’s deficiencies,
because it discloses “validating the accuracy of location data, e.g.,
coordinates, provided by a mobile device connected to a particular access
point, such as when the mobile device makes an emergency 911 phone call.”
Id. at 20. Appellant argues Lopez’s validation method determines whether
“the caller in question is sufficiently likely to be connected to the particular
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
6
access point when at the specified location” rather than confirming a
portable computing device is at the desired location. Id.
Appellant further contends there would have been no motivation to
combine Jagannath and Lopez, because “neither the technical feature of
[Lopez’s] system nor the threshold or probability of the type Lopez
describes would have any apparent applicability in the context of the
Jagannath system.” Id. In specific, Appellant argues “there is no access
point to which Jagannath’s mobile device connects (particularly for location
determining purposes) and thus no reason [to determine] whether a
particular connection between the mobile device and an access point is likely
to have occurred [based on Lopez].” Id. at 21 (emphasis omitted)
Appellant finally contends, even if appropriate motivation to combine
the references did exist, Jagannath modified by Lopez would produce “the
modified system [that] would simply have compared the coordinates
determined by the Jagannath system with the coordinates provided by the
mobile device,” which is significantly different from Appellant’s claim. Id.
at 21.
The Examiner responds:
Lopez is used to modify Jagannath such that previous wireless
signal measurements like in Jagannath are used, not simply to
determine which location is most likely from an overall
fingerprint map of a region, but rather to determine if the
probability that the measuring device is at a particular location
is high enough to make a confirmation that the measuring
device is indeed at that location.
Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive mapping of findings to the
claimed limitations. Id. at 4–12. In particular, in response to Appellant’s
arguments, the Examiner suggests that claim 1’s preamble “might not have
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
7
patentable weight.” Id. at 7 (e.g., preamble is mere recitation of an intended
use4). Furthermore, according to the Examiner, in the absence of Appellant
attributing a special meaning to otherwise subjective criteria, “the word
‘desired’ does not add much narrowing weight in ‘desired location.’” Id. at
9–10. Nonetheless, the Examiner explains “[t]he location being validated in
Lopez may be considered to be a ‘desired location’ because it is desired to
perform the respective service of Lopez at that location.” Id. at 9. The
Examiner also explains, “a fingerprint map location that is determined to be
the location of the user device in Jagannath could [also] be considered to be
a ‘desired location’ because it is the location that was desired to be found
that identifies the location of the user device.” Id. at 10.
The Examiner describes the motivation for the combination as “for
validating a user’s location for providing a service.” Id. at 12. In response
to Appellant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the
references because Lopez’s teachings have no apparent applicability in the
context of the Jagannath system (Appeal Br. 20), the Examiner responds
“[a]n important point here is that the 103 rejections are not attempting to
combine every detail from Lopez into Jagannath, nor must they.” Id. at 14.
“Thus, it is fair to combine the higher-level idea of confirming a location
based on comparing a probability score to a threshold, from Lopez into
Jagannath.” Id.
The Examiner also finds unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that
Jagannath modified by Lopez “compare[s] the coordinates determined by

4 See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (statement of intended use not limiting where body of claim fully
sets forth all limitations of the claimed invention rather than a distinct
definition of the claimed limitations).
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
8
the Jagannath system with the coordinates provided by the mobile device”
rather than comparing wireless fingerprints. Appeal Br. 21. Addressing the
argument, the Examiner replies that Jagannath’s paragraph 29 describes
“comparison between the received wireless signal information and the
mapped signal information” (Ans. 13), and “[t]here would be no need to
change the type of data used in the fingerprints being compared (from
Jagannath)” after the modification based on Lopez. Id. at 14.
Appellant replies, even if the combination of Jagannath and Lopez
does not produce the comparison of coordinates of two locations, motivation
is lacking to have modified Jagannath to yield the claimed invention of
comparing wireless fingerprints:
The Answer . . . does not explain why a POSITA would have
had any reason to validate the accuracy of a user-provided
location by evaluating the similarity between wireless signal
fingerprints given that Jagannath already uses those same
fingerprints to determine the actual location of the mobile
device.
Reply Br. 4.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We agree with the Examiner that the disputed limitations are taught by the
combination of Jagannath and Lopez:
Lopez is used to modify Jagannath such that previous wireless
signal measurements like in Jagannath are used, not simply to
determine which location is most likely from an overall
fingerprint map of a region, but rather to determine if the
probability that the measuring device is at a particular location is
high enough to make a confirmation that the measuring device is
indeed at that location.
Ans. 3–4. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
9
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
We agree with the Examiner in finding “[t]he location being validated
in Lopez may be considered to be a ‘desired location’ because it is desired to
perform the respective service of Lopez at that location.” Ans. 9. During
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description must not be read into the
claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be
read into the claims from the specification.”). Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has
the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364; see also In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
1262, 1267–68 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Applicant always has the opportunity to
amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the
examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be
interpreted more broadly than is justified.” (quoting Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure § 2111)).
We agree with the Examiner in finding the “desired location” is
further confirmed by Lopez’s validation method. Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 7–
9. The Examiner’s finding is consistent with Appellant’s stated position that
“Lopez discloses validating the accuracy of location data . . . provided by a
mobile device . . . .” Appeal Br. 20. The location data are confirmed, if one
is sufficiently confident that the mobile device is at the provided location.
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
10
See Lopez ¶ 1 (“[T]he invention relates to a method for validating a user
equipment location in a telecommunication network . . .”).
In an attempt to distinguish Lopez’s validation method from location
confirmation, Appellant argues Lopez’s validation method instead
determines whether “the caller[’s mobile device] in question is sufficiently
likely to be connected to the particular access point when at the specified
location.” Appeal Br. 20. The argument is unpersuasive. By determining
the likelihood that the mobile device is connected to a proximate access
point from a user provided location, Lopez confirms the user provided
location, thereby teaching the disputed location confirmation.
Appellant’s argument that the differences in the two references render
them incompatible (Appeal Br. 20–21) is also unpersuasive. Instead, we
agree with the Examiner that the “103 rejections are not attempting to
combine every detail from Lopez into Jagannath, nor must they.” Ans. 14
(emphasis omitted). That is, Appellant’s argument improperly relies on
bodily incorporation of Lopez’s teachings rather than what the combination
of Lopez and Jagannath fairly suggests.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (citations omitted). The artisan is not compelled to
mechanically follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Instead, the skilled
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
11
artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
pieces of a puzzle” because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
420–21 (2007). Here, Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination in support of the conclusion of obviousness would
have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20). Therefore, we are unpersuaded
by Appellant’s argument that because “there is no access point to which
Jagannath’s mobile device connects,” there is “no reason [to determine]
whether a particular connection between the mobile device and an access
point is likely to have occurred [as taught by Lopez].” Appeal Br. 21
(emphasis omitted).
We agree with the Examiner in finding that the combination of Lopez
and Jagannath teaches or at least fairly suggests confirming a mobile
device’s location, manually as provided by a user or automatically as
provided by a user device. See Ans. 12–13; Lopez ¶ 53. In particular, the
disputed limitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the combination of
(i) Jagannath’s probability5 estimate based on a comparison of a wireless
fingerprint detected with the wireless fingerprint stored for the mobile
device’s location on a map substituted for (ii) the estimated probability used
in Lopez’s validation method. See Ans. 12; Final Act. 13. The substitution
would have been reasonable, because the estimated probabilities in Lopez

5 Final Act. 13 (“[T]he fingerprint scores[, mapped to weights associated
with wireless signal fingerprints,] may be viewed as probabilities because,
the higher they are, the more likely they are considered to be the location for
the request”).
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
12
and Jagannath have a common purpose: the estimated probability is
indicative of a confidence level in the validity of the location data. Lopez
¶ 28; Jagannath ¶ 29; see Final Act. 13–14.
In view of how the Examiner combines Jagannath and Lopez, we
disagree with Appellant that Jagannath modified by Lopez “compare[s] the
coordinates determined by the Jagannath system with the coordinates
provided by the mobile device.” Appeal Br. 21. Instead, the coordinates of
a mobile device provided by the mobile system or provided by a user are
validated according to Lopez’s validation method to compare how well
wireless fingerprints match. See Ans. 12–13; Lopez ¶ 53. As found by the
Examiner, “[t]here would be no need to change the type of data used in the
fingerprints being compared (from Jagannath)” after the modification based
on Lopez. Ans. 14.
We further agree the Examiner provides sufficient motivation for
combining Jagannath and Lopez: to “validat[e] a user’s location for
providing a service.” Final Act. 14. Appellant’s argument to the contrary is
unpersuasive. Appellant argues there is no requisite motivation to combine
Jagannath and Lopez to “validate the accuracy of a user-provided location by
evaluating the similarity between wireless signal fingerprints, [because]
Jagannath already uses those same fingerprints to determine the actual
location of the mobile device.” Reply Br. 4. The argued incompatibility
does not exist because the Examiner’s combination of Jagannath and Lopez
does not require the teaching of determining the actual location of the
mobile device. See Ans. 11–12 (“[T]he result [based on the combination of
Jagannath and Lopez] would be having a particular location to be confirmed,
instead of open-ended location determination as previously in Jagannath”).
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
13
Thus, the combination modifies Jagannath’s “open-ended location
determination” to include instead Lopez’s location confirmation.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the rejections of independent claims 5, 13, 21, and 22 that are argued
together with claim 1. Appeal Br. 19 (“[E]ach of [independent claims 1, 5,
13, 21, and 22] is focused, in essence, on one implementation of confirming
that a device is at a desired location by determining whether wireless signal
information acquired at two different times exceed a threshold degree of
similarity”).

The Rejection of Claims 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 6 recites:
The method of claim 5, wherein the information corresponding
to the first location is further based on one or more of a wireless
signal strength, a wireless signal frequency, an identifier of a
wireless signal transmitter, or content of a pilot signal of a
wireless signal.
Claim 14, which depends from independent claim 13, recites a similar
limitation. The Examiner finds Jagannath’s disclosure of “[a] location
fingerprint may correspond to, for example, a wireless signal identifier and
signal strength” teaches or suggests the disputed limitation “wherein the
information corresponding to the first location is further based on . . . a
wireless signal strength . . . ” of claims 6 and 14. Ans. 15–16 (citing
Jagannath ¶ 19) (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that “[i]n the proposed combination, the types of
information recited in claims 6 and 14 . . . would have been used solely to
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
14
determine coordinates of a mobile device, and not to confirm that the device
is a desired location, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 22.
The Examiner replies it is not apparent “how Appellant’s argument
here interferes with the modification/combination involving Jagannath and
Lopez, as explained . . . by [the] Examiner.” Ans. 15.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error for
the reasons discussed above. As explained in connection with claim 1, we
disagree the combination of Jagannath and Lopez would result in a system
that compares location coordinates rather than location fingerprints (i.e., a
detected wireless fingerprint to a stored wireless fingerprint of a desired
location) to confirm that a portable computing device is at a desired location.
Thus, by teaching also using signal strength in determining a location
fingerprint, Jagannath teaches the additional limitation of claims 6 and 14.

The Rejection of Claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and specifies that “wherein the delivery
location confirmation is performed in response to a delivery event, wherein
the delivery event comprises processing an inventory identifier of an item
prior to delivery, and wherein the method further comprises receiving the
inventory identifier and the first message from the portable computing
device at the first location.”
Appellant argues “Mangan teaches that location determination, e.g.,
by scanning a location code or via GPS, is performed before package IDs are
scanned to ‘scan out’ or ‘scan in’ packages to the system. . . There is thus
no teaching or suggestion in the applied art that location determination could
or should be performed ‘in response to’ scanning a package ID.” Appeal
Br. 23 (citing Mangan ¶¶ 27–28) (emphasis omitted). Appellant also
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
15
generally alleges none of the Examiner’s cited references teaches “receiving
the inventory identifier and the first message [representing the first wireless
signal fingerprint] from the portable computing device at the first location.”
Id. (brackets in original).
The Examiner responds that “in Mangan, the delivery event (that
ultimately includes the scan-out) has begun before the location confirmation,
even if the scan-out itself does not occur before the location confirmation.”
Ans. 17 (emphasis omitted). Alternatively, according to the Examiner “[t]he
‘processing [an inventory identifier]’ of claim 2 . . . may be interpreted to be
not the scan-out of the package at the delivery destination but rather the
planning using the package ID that occurs before even arriving at the
delivery destination[, where the location confirmation is performed].” Id. at
17–18 (citing Mangan ¶¶ 20, 24, 27–28).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error,
because it is not commensurate in scope with claim 2. In particular, claim 2
does not require receiving the first message (representing a first wireless
signal fingerprint corresponding to a first location of the portable computing
device) in response to processing an inventory identifier but, instead, in
response to a delivery event which includes processing an inventory
identifier. As explained by the Examiner, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation: the “delivery event” may further include an earlier triggering
event. See Ans. 17. Such an interpretation is consistent with the language of
claim 2 reciting that the delivery event comprises processing an inventory
identifier of an item prior to delivery, the use of the open-ended comprising
transition language allowing for other triggering events. This claim
construction is reasonable because, during examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
16
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
at 1364.
As explained by the Examiner, Mangan teaches examples of earlier
triggering events that may be included in the delivery event. See Ans. 17–18
(citing ¶¶ 20, 24, 27–28). In particular, we agree with the Examiner
“Mangan . . . describes how a courier receives a schedule of service stops to
be made.” Id. at 17 (citing ¶ 20). “Upon arrival [at a service stop for
delivery,]” Mangan discloses “the driver verifies whether he has arrived at
the correct location by scanning a location code.” Id. at 17–18 (citing
Mangan ¶ 24). Thus, location confirmation upon arrival at a service stop for
delivery occurs in response to having received the schedule, because the
courier arrives at the service stop in accordance to the received schedule for
the stop. See Mangan FIG. 3.
We further agree with the Examiner’s alternative mapping for
“processing an inventory identifier of an item” to be an earlier triggering
event. In this case, the earlier triggering event is mapped to Mangan’s
“planning using the package ID that occurs before even arriving at the
delivery destination.” Ans. 17–18 (citing Mangan ¶¶ 20, 24, 27–28). Later,
i.e., upon arriving at the delivery destination, the courier confirms whether
the location is correct. Id. The location confirmation is performed in
response to the planning, because the courier arrives at a confirmed
destination for the planned delivery.
We are also unpersuaded the combination of Jagannath and Mangan
fails to teach or suggest “receiving the inventory identifier and the first
message from the portable computing device at the first location.” Mangan
discloses scanning-out packages after verifying arrival at the correct location
(i.e., scanning the inventory identifier) (Mangan ¶ 27) and uploading
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
17
package IDs to the server (Mangan ¶¶ 7, 28). Verifying location as taught
by Jagannath includes receiving the first message as explained in connection
with claim 1. Therefore, the combination of Jagannath and Mangan teaches
or suggests that disputed limitation.
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments are
unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The Rejection of Claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 7 depends from claim 5 and specifies that “wherein the second
message causes the portable computing device to output an indication that
the first location is the desired delivery location.” Claim 15, which depends
from independent claim 13, includes a similar limitation.
Appellant contends a system based on Jagannath and Lopez does not
teach or suggest the recited limitation. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant’s
contention is unpersuasive because, as the Examiner responds, and we agree,
Appellant fails to address that the rejection relies on the combination of
Jagannath, Valee, and Mangan for teaching the claim limitation. Ans. 19–
20; see also Final Act. 20.

The Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and specifies “determining that an item
was delivered correctly to the first location; associating the first wireless
signal fingerprint with the desired location; and storing the first wireless
signal fingerprint for use in confirming a delivery location for a future
delivery attempt.” The Examiner determines claim 4 is obvious in view of
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
18
the combined teachings of Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, Mangan, and Halcrow.
Final Act. 22–23.
Appellant contends “[t]he ‘Hotspot ID and parameters’ collected and
stored by the Halcrow system . . . do not meet the ‘first wireless signal
fingerprint.’” Appeal Br. 25. Unlike the wireless signal fingerprint,
Appellant argues “the ‘hotspot’ information acquired by the Halcrow system
is used exclusively to identify locations from which suitable Wi-Fi internet
connections can be established,” and the hotspot information cannot be
“compared with a second wireless signal fingerprint to confirm presence at a
particular location, as claimed.” Id. (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner replies “an identifier of a detected WiFi network (such
as Halcrow’s hotspot ID) is of the type of wireless signal information that
may constitute a fingerprint in the fingerprint map of Appellant’s
application.” Ans. 21–22 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 14, 32). Although Halcrow
teaches a wireless fingerprint, the Examiner relies on “other references[,
including Jagannath and Valaee,] used in combination for the feature of
using a fingerprint map to confirm a delivery location. What Halcrow was
needed for was the concept of creating the fingerprint map by measuring
fingerprints at a plurality of known locations.” Id. at 22–23.
Appellant’s argument based on alleged deficiencies of Halcrow fails
to address the combined teachings of Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, Mangan,
and Halcrow applied by the Examiner. Thus, Appellant’s argument is an
improper attack on Halcrow individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.

Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
19
The Rejection of Claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 10 depends from claim 5 and specifies “providing data
corresponding to an interface to a user computing device to record the
information at a potential desired location; receiving the information from
the user computing device; associating the information received from the
user computing device with data identifying the potential desired location;
and storing the information and the data.” Claim 18 includes similar
limitations, and depends from claim 13.
The Examiner finds and we agree that “Appellant’s 103 arguments
with respect to claims 10 and 18 are very similar to the ones with respect to
claim 4, which were already addressed by Examiner above.” Ans. 23. We
sustain the rejections of claims 10 and 18 for similar reasons as for claim 4.

The Rejection of Claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 12 depends from claim 5, and specifies “receiving a plurality of
instances of the information from the portable computing device via the
network; and sending the second message to the portable computing device
in response to at least one of the plurality of the instances of the information
having greater than a threshold similarity to the previously stored radio
frequency fingerprint associated with the desired location.” Claim 20
includes similar limitations, and depends from claim 13.
Appellant contends “[t]he latitude and longitude data of Orwant . . .
cannot correspond to ‘the information’ recited in claims 5 and 12 or 13 and
20, as the claimed ‘information’ is not merely a set of coordinates and is
instead information that can be compared with a stored radio frequency
fingerprint to confirm presence at a particular location.” Appeal Br. 27.
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
20
The Examiner responds “Orwant does not need to disclose the
wireless fingerprints and the particular fingerprint locating method, because
[Jagannath and Valaee] in the combination are used for those features.”
Ans. 25.
Appellant’s argument based on alleged deficiencies of Orwant fails to
address the combined teachings of Jagannath, Lopez, Valaee, Mangan, and
Orwant applied by the Examiner. Thus, Appellant’s argument is an
improper attack on Orwant individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at 1097.

The Rejection of Claims 3, 8, 11, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We sustain the rejections of dependent claims 3, 8, 11, 16, and 19,
because they are not argued separately with particularity.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–8, 10–16, and 18–22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14, 16,
21, 22
103 Jagannath, Lopez, 1, 5, 6, 8,
13, 14, 16,
21, 22

2, 7, 11, 15,
19
103 Jagannath, Lopez,
Valaee, Mangan
2, 7, 11,
15, 19

3 103 Jagannath, Lopez,
Valaee, Jan
3
4 103 Jagannath, Lopez,
Valaee, Mangan,
Halcrow
4
Appeal 2019-006609
Application 14/030,450
21
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
10, 18 103 Jagannath, Lopez,
Valaee, Halcrow
10, 18
12, 20 103 Jagannath, Lopez,
Valaee, Mangan,
Orwant
12, 20
Overall
Outcome:
1–8, 10–
16, 18–22

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