Comcast Cable Communications, LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 4, 20212019006134 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 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. 15/842,057 12/14/2017 William Carroll VerSteeg 102005.023643 1057 71581 7590 03/04/2021 BakerHostetler / Comcast Cira Centre, 12th Floor 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104-2891 EXAMINER GELIN, JEAN ALLAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/04/2021 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): eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM CARROLL VERSTEEG Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 Technology Center 2600 BEFORE JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, BETH Z. SHAW, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, 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 1, 2, 4–13, 15, 16, and 19–21. Claims 14, 17, and 18 are objected to, but identified as allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitation of the base claim. Claim 3 is cancelled. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[s]ystems and methods for improved geolocation in a low power wide area network.” Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: causing an end node in a low power wide area network to transmit a high-power signal at a power between about .5 Watts and about 1 Watt; identifying a plurality of receipt times, each receipt time of the plurality of receipt times indicative of a time at which the high-power signal was received by a respective gateway of a plurality of gateways of the low power wide area network; and based at least in part on the plurality of receipt times, determining a geolocation of the end node. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rose US 2017/0230074 A1 Aug. 10, 2017 Henry US 2013/0178229 A1 July 11, 2013 Thrope US 2016/0358144 A1 Dec. 8, 2016 Shaker US 2017 /0237456 A1 Aug. 17, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Rose. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rose and Henry. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rose and Thrope. Final Act. 4–5. Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 3 The Examiner rejected claims 9–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rose, Thorpe, and Shaker. Final Act. 5–7. OPINION THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON ROSE Claims 1, 6-8, 13, 15, 16, and 21 Appellant asserts that Rose fails to disclose “identifying a plurality of receipt times, each receipt time of the plurality of receipt times indicative of a time at which the high-power signal was received by a respective gateway of a plurality of gateways of the low power wide area network.” Appeal Br 3–4 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellant contends that Rose teaches applying a timestamp to captured sensor data and then transmitting the data to a gateway. As such, Rose does not disclose receipt times indicating a time when the signal was received by a respective gateway. Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also argues that Rose does not disclose “based at least in part on the plurality of receipt times, determining a geolocation of the end node.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant contends “[t]he Examiner has taken language from [Rose] out of context.” Appeal Br. 6. For example, Appellant explains that Rose describes “using location tracking hardware . . . to provide ‘timing information and location information to the gateway device.’” Id. According to Appellant, “Rose relies not on using receipt times to determine geolocation of an end node but rather relies on location tracking hardware, such as GPS.” Id. The Examiner determines Rose discloses the disputed limitations. The Examiner finds Rose teaches an end device timestamping collected data and then transmitting the data to the gateway. Final Act. 2. The Examiner explains “the end device can perform the function of the gateway and vice- Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 4 versa.” Ans. 4. In other words, we understand, according to the Examiner, although Rose teaches the end point time stamping and transmitting the measurement data to the gateway, it would have been known to one of skill that the gateway could alternatively perform the timestamping function upon receipt. Ans. 4. The Examiner also points out that the “gateway comprises a data logger ([0047]).” Ans. 4. With respect to determining a geolocation based at least in part on the plurality of receipt times, the Examiner explains Rose teaches using location tracking hardware for system wide coordination and for approximating the position of an end device. Ans. 5. The Examiner additionally emphasizes that the claim only requires determining the geolocation of the end node based at least in part on the plurality of receipt times. Ans. 5. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Rose anticipates the claimed invention. While Rose, like the claimed invention, generally relates to a low power centralized data collection system, under an anticipation rejection Rose’s general descriptions of timestamping by the end device, gateway data logging, system-wide coordination, and determining the location of an end node with location tracking hardware, are insufficient to satisfy the recited specific claim limitations. For example, Rose generally describes using timing for system wide coordination and teaches finding the geolocation of the end points. Notably absent on this record, though, is the claimed connection between the trilateration of the end points based at least in part on a plurality of receipt times. While Rose may arguably suggest “coordination” of the trilateration based on timing generally, this fails to satisfy the limitations of the claims. As Appellant points out, in an anticipation Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 5 rejection, “all of the elements and limitations of the claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.” Appeal Br. 3 (quoting Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As such, based on the record before us, we are constrained to find that the Examiner fails to sufficiently show that Rose anticipates the claimed invention. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16, and 21 as anticipated by Rose. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 2, 4, 5, 9–12, 19, and 20 As discussed above, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 13 as anticipated by Rose. The additionally cited prior art does not cure the deficiencies of Rose. As such, we are also persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 4, 5, 9–12, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Rose in combination with the additionally cited prior art. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16, 21 as anticipated and the rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 9–12, 19 and 20 as obvious are reversed. Appeal 2019-006134 Application 15/842,057 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16, 21 102 Rose 1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16, 21 2 103 Rose, Henry 2 4, 5, 19, 20 103 Rose, Thorpe 4, 5, 19, 20 9–12 103 Rose, Thorpe, Shaker 9–12 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–13, 15, 16, 19– 21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation