Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2021

2019006134 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 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.
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