Ex Parte BengtssonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201311142524 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) 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. 11/142,524 06/01/2005 Henrik Bengtsson 9342-286 6185 54414 7590 02/28/2013 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A. P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte HENRIK BENGTSSON ____________ Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, THOMAS L. GIANNETTI and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention According to Appellant, the invention relates to the field of communications in general, and, more particularly, to communication among a plurality of Bluetooth compatible wireless communication terminals. (Spec. [0001].) Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method for displaying on a first wireless communication terminal a relative position of a second wireless communication terminal, the method comprising: receiving at the first wireless communication terminal wireless signals directly from the second wireless communication terminal; measuring distances between the first and second wireless communication terminals based on strength of the received wireless signals when the first wireless communication terminal is at three or more different locations; measuring distances between the three or more different locations of the first wireless communication terminal using a position determination unit in the first wireless communication terminal that senses movement thereof; determining a direction and distance between the first and second wireless communication terminals based on the measured distances between the first and second wireless communication terminals and the measured distances between the three or more different Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 3 locations of the first wireless communication terminal; and displaying on the first wireless communication terminal a position of the second wireless communication terminal relative to the first wireless communication terminal based on the determined direction and distance between the first and second wireless communication terminals. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sasaki US 5,926,765 Jul. 20, 1999 Smith US 6,374,179 B1 Apr. 16, 2002 Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Smith. (Ans. 3-9.) ISSUES Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are directed to the Examiner’s rejection of all the claims as being unpatentable for obviousness over the combination of Sasaki and Smith. In particular, the issues turn on: (1) Whether Smith’s disclosure of navigational position sources, in combination with Sasaki, teaches or suggests “measuring Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 4 distances . . . using a position determination unit . . . that senses movement,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 4-6 (emphasis in original)); (2) Whether Smith’s disclosure of an accelerometer as a navigational position source, in combination with Sasaki, teaches or suggests “measuring acceleration . . . as it is moved between the three or more different locations” and “determining distances . . . based on the acceleration information,” as recited in claim 6 (App. Br. 6-7); and (3) Whether Smith’s disclosure of a compass and gyroscope as examples of navigational position sources, in combination with Sasaki, teaches or suggests “measuring rotation . . . as it is moved between the three or more different locations and “determining distances . . . based on the acceleration information and based on the measured rotation,” as recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 7-8). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Having considered all the arguments presented, we address for each issue specific findings and conclusions supporting the Board’s decision. Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 5 “Position Determination Unit” Issue - Independent Claims 1 and 13, and Dependent Claims 2-5, 10, 11-12, 14, 15, 18-20 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 13, because the combination of Sasaki and Smith fails to disclose the limitation of “measuring distances . . . using a position determination unit,” as recited in claim 1, and commensurately recited in claim 13. (App. Br. 4-6.) According to Appellant, Sasaki lacks a position determination unit and instead involves a manual process of inputting in a cordless telephone the distances traveled as the telephone is moved. (App. Br. 4-5.) The Examiner concedes these facts, but finds that the use of a position determination unit is old and well-known in the art, citing Smith as evidence. (Ans. 4, 10-12.) Smith discloses the use of position session modules 202, 204, and 206, as shown in Figure 5 (Id.), and navigational position sources 208 (Ans. 12-14) connected to or integrated in a user node for “providing position information or any component of position information” (Smith, col. 5 ll. 3-10). The Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have been motivated to combine the feature of using a position determination unit as disclosed in Smith with the system in Sasaki, because a user would benefit from the automatic determination of position rather than manually inputting the position information in the cordless telephone. (Ans. 4, 11-12.) Appellant concedes that Smith’s position session modules can be used to determine the position of a user node, but nevertheless contends that Smith falls short of the claim limitations recited in claims 1 and 13. (App. Br. 5.) Further, Smith’s use of the position session modules is allegedly irrelevant Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 6 to the patentability of the claims-at-issue. (Id.) And, in particular, Sasaki and Smith fail to disclose that a wireless communication terminal can use the position session modules to measure the distances between the three particular locations required by the claims. (App. Br. 5.) We do not agree with Appellant’s conclusions. First, we make the following findings of fact relevant to the dispute. We find that Smith discloses the use of devices for sensing movement of a user node, which may comprise a wireless device. (See e.g., Smith, col. 3, ll. 53-62 (describing user node), col. 6, ll. 14-29 (describing various components of position data, including speed and heading). Smith further discloses the use of a variety of navigation position sources, such as GPS, accelerometer, and gyroscope (Smith, col. 5, ll. 17, 22-23, and 33), which are known to provide information that an application can use (Smith, col. 5, ll. 52-60) to determine a distance traveled. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that position determination units were well-known in the art at the time of the invention. (See Ans. 11.) We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the position session modules of Smith are irrelevant to the claims-at-issue. In addition, Appellant’s Specification, by leaving undisclosed the detail of their operation, confirms that the devices disclosed in Smith, i.e., accelerometer and gyroscope, are known for use in determining distance and direction traveled. (See Spec. [0040]-[0041].) Further, we note that the Examiner’s rejection is based on Sasaki, as the primary reference, which describes using at least three specific positions at which a cordless telephone takes measurements and accepts distance and Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 7 bearing information to calculate the location of a second cordless telephone. (Ans. 3-4, 13-16; Sasaki, figs.9-10.) Figure 9 of Sasaki is reproduced below: Figure 9 of Sasaki illustrates the principles of detection of position information of a second cordless telephone. (Sasaki, fig.9; col. 5, ll. 14-15.) At the measurement positions illustrated in Figure 9, the first cordless telephone employs a detection algorithm that takes into consideration the detected field level corresponding to the second cordless telephone together with the distance and bearing of the displacement of the first cordless telephone. (Sasaki, col. 5, ll. 16-30.) That is, Sasaki’s method of detection utilizes a three-point measurement based on both (1) field level or signal strength of the second cordless telephone, and (2) the distance and bearing of the displacement of the first cordless telephone. According to the Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 8 Examiner’s finding, the three-point measurement discloses the measuring step at-issue, except for the claimed use of a position determination unit. (Ans. 3-4.) Again, the input of the distance and bearing information in Sasaki is a manual process, and not automatically determined. We concur with the Examiner, however, that such manual process does not preclude a person of ordinary skill in the art from using Smith’s position session module, which accepts different types of input (other than manual input) with the Sasaki system. (Ans. 16.) Considering the teachings of Sasaki and Smith and the knowledge and skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that Sasaki and Smith fail to disclose that a wireless communication terminal can use the position session modules of Smith to measure the distances between three particular locations. (App. Br. 5.) First, Sasaki is evidence that the principle of detecting a location of a second wireless communication device, based at least in part on the distances between the three particular locations, was known in the art. And Smith is evidence that the use of position session modules to automatically determine position information, and therefore distance, was known in the art. Appellant’s claimed invention is, therefore, a combination of known methods for determining position and distance. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). More specifically, “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 9 arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Finally, to the extent Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Sasaki and Smith fail to describe how the known methods of Sasaki and Smith would be combined to achieve the claimed invention, we disagree with Appellant. “The test for obviousness is not whether . . . 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.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 Fed. Cir. 1983 (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391 F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 10 We, therefore, concur with the Examiner that the combination of Sasaki and Smith teaches the limitation of “measuring distances . . . using a position determination unit . . . that senses movement thereof,” where the direction and distance between the wireless communication terminals is based on “measured distances between the three or more different locations of the first wireless communication terminal.” For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as being unpatentable for obviousness over Sasaki and Smith, and of claims 2-5, 10, 11-12 dependent thereon, which are not separately argued by Appellant. For the same reasons, we also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 and of claims 14, 15, and 18-20 dependent thereon, and not separately argued. “Measuring Acceleration” Issue – Claims 6, 7, and 16 Appellant contends that the combination of Sasaki and Smith does not disclose all the limitations recited in claim 6. (App. Br. 6-7.) Claim 6 recites, among other limitations, “measuring acceleration” and “determining distances . . . based on the acceleration information.” Appellant admits that Smith briefly describes the use of an accelerometer to navigate. (App. Br. 6.) However, in Appellant’s view, Smith does not teach or suggest any particular use of the accelerometer that is relevant to claim 6, such as using the accelerometer to measure acceleration between the three particular terminal locations required by the claim. (Id.) For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, we concur with the Examiner that the combination of Sasaki and Smith teaches the limitation of “measuring distances . . . between the three or more different Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 11 locations of the first wireless communication terminal.” And particularly to the issue of acceleration, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the disclosure of acceleration in Smith meets the recited “measuring acceleration” limitation. (Ans. 7.) As already stated, Smith discloses the use of a variety of navigation position sources, such as GPS, accelerometer, and gyroscope (Smith, col. 5, ll. 17, 22-23, and 33), which are known to provide information that an application can use (Smith, col. 5, ll. 52-60) to determine a distance and direction traveled. Finally, and for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, to the extent Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Sasaki and Smith fail to describe how the known methods of Sasaki and Smith would be combined to achieve the claimed invention, we disagree with Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 6, as being unpatentable for obviousness over Sasaki and Smith, and of claim 7, dependent thereon. For similar reasons, we also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 16, which recites limitations similar to claim 7. (App. Br. 6-7.) “Measuring Rotation” Issue – Claims 8, 9, and 17 Appellant contends that the combination of Sasaki and Smith fails to disclose all the limitations recited in claim 8. (App. Br. 7-8.) Claim 8 recites, among other limitations, “measuring rotation of the first wireless communication terminal as it is moved between the three of more different locations.” Appellant concedes that Smith briefly describes the use of a Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 12 gyroscope to navigate. (App. Br. 7.) In Appellant’s view, Smith’s disclosure of a gyroscope is not relevant to claim 8, in particular, because Sasaki and Smith do not teach or suggest the use of the gyroscope to measure rotation while the terminal is moved between three different particular locations. (Id.) First, we note that Appellant cites the Specification to explain the scope of claim 8. That paragraph describes that the strength of signals varies depending on the relative orientation between the antennas of two terminals. (Spec. [0044].) It is not clear how this paragraph supports or illustrates the limitations recited in claim 8, which is silent concerning limitations of signal strength or distances between two terminals. As such, we conclude that those arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and are therefore unpersuasive. Further, and as stated above with respect to claim 1, we concur with the Examiner that the combination of Sasaki and Smith teaches the limitation of “measuring distances . . . between the three or more different locations of the first wireless communication terminal.” And particularly to the issue of rotation, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the disclosure of a compass in Smith reads on the claimed measuring rotation limitation. (Ans. 8.) As already stated, Smith discloses the use of a variety of navigation position sources, such as GPS, accelerometer, and gyroscope (Smith, col. 5, ll. 17, 22-23, and 33), which are known to provide information that an application can use (Smith, col. 5, ll. 52-60) to determine a distance and direction traveled. Appeal 2010-010520 Application 11/142,524 13 Finally, and for the reasons stated above with respect to claims 1 and 6, to the extent Appellant contends the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Sasaki and Smith fail to describe how the known methods of Sasaki and Smith would be combined to achieve the claimed invention, we disagree with Appellant. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8, as being unpatentable for obviousness over Sasaki and Smith, and of claim 9 dependent thereon, not separately argued. We also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claim 17, which recites limitations similar to claim 9. (App. Br. 8.) DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sasaki and Smith. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation