Ex Parte HalivaaraDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 201412008703 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ISMO HALIVAARA ____________________ Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, EDWARD A. BROWN, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Ismo Halivaara (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-25, which are all the claims remaining of record in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method, a software product, apparatus, a mobile station and a system for creating or receiving positioning assistance data messages, in a generic format, for assisting mobile stations to determine their respective positions based upon signals from different types of global navigation satellite systems, according to information and messages broadcast from a terrestrial base station. Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: creating a plurality of positioning assistance data messages in a generic format that assist a plurality of mobile stations determine their positions based upon signals from a plurality of types of global navigation satellite system; broadcasting scheduling information from a terrestrial base station describing which of the positioning assistance data messages contain or contains positioning assistance data for which of the types of global navigation satellite system; and broadcasting said positioning assistance data messages from said or another terrestrial base station, according to the scheduling information. Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 3 PRIOR ART Gaal US 2002/0072378 A1 June 13, 2002 McCasland et al., “Open System Architecture (PSA) for Dual-Use Satellite Navigation”, Aerospace Conference Proceedings, May 18-25, 2000, Piscatawny, JN, IEEE Vol. 11, 2/1/00, pgs. 99-110. GROUND OF REJECTION Appellant requests review of the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gaal, in view of McCasland. OPINION The Examiner has ascertained, and Appellant acknowledges, that “Gaal discusses a technique to broadcast position location data (PLD) from a base station to a number of mobile terminals[,]” whereby “a group of PLD messages related to GPS satellites is broadcast in a scheduled format.” App. Br. 5. With respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11, the Examiner finds that “Gaal neither provides a generic format for the message nor uses a plurality of types of [GNSSs]1.” Ans. 5, 7, 8. However, with respect to independent claims 16, 21, and 23, the Examiner finds that Gaal does provide a generic format, namely, the IS-801 standard, for the messages, “but does not use a plurality of types of [GNSSs].” Ans. 10, 12, 13, citing Gaal, para. 0030. 1 “GNSS stands for Global Navigation Satellite System. The term GNSS is used to refer collectively to GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, SBAS, LAAS and QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System), or an element thereof.” Spec. 2, ll. 15-17. Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 4 The Examiner finds that McCasland describes “a generic format (page 99, col. 2, last paragraph) and use of same with a plurality of types of [GNSSs] (page 99, col. 2, first complete paragraph).” Ans. 5, 7, 8-9, 10, 12, 13. The Examiner concludes that “[t]his combination of Gaal’s provision of data from terrestrial stations to receivers with McCasland’s generic messages [(or “generic format,” as stated directly above)] from satellites to receivers would be obvious in order to allow a receiver to use different [GNSSs] as needed.” Ans. 14. Moreover, the Examiner finds that because McCasland “teach[es] and suggest[s] that each GNSS component should adhere to interoperability standards (Abstract) and that ‘…an advanced level of cooperation could entail exchange of ground measurement data…[,]’ . . . McCasland actually teaches and suggests, and thus provides motivation, for the combination of Gaal and McCasland.” Ans. 15, see McCasland, Abstract and p. 108, last para. Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s position “that McCasland makes up for the deficiencies in the teachings of Gaal.” App. Br. 5. Appellant argues, inter alia, that “McCasland merely suggests that all navigation systems should adopt a GPS signal in space (SIS) interface for interoperability standards” and that “[t]he SIS interface is between satellites and receivers, and does not disclose or suggest broadcasting positioning assistance data in a generic format from a terrestrial base station, as recited in claim 1.” Id. Appellant further argues that “since claim 1 requires that the terrestrial base station broadcast the positioning assistance data in a generic format, McCasland provides no motivation or suggestion for providing generic messages from terrestrial base stations, because McCasland Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 5 specifically states that ground-to-user interfaces can operate independently.” App. Br. 6. Appellant contends that while McCasland may discuss developing standard interface definitions between ground systems, McCasland is silent regarding whether these standard interface definitions will require generic messages, as recited in claim 1, since standardization only requires that different components be capable of being combined into a single system and is distinct from defining generic messages for use in communicating between the components, whether satellite or ground based. Reply Br. 2-3. We are persuaded by the Examiner’s findings. Regarding whether Gaal discloses a “generic format,” as the Examiner points out, Gaal describes the IS-801 standard as the format for PLD messages sent between a base station and mobile terminals. Ans. 10, 12, 13, citing Gaal, p. 3, para. 0030. This message format may not be “generic” according to Appellant’s definition in the Specification, because Gaal defines the IS-801 standard in the context of a dedicated GNSS, namely, GPS, and Appellant defines “generic” as “i.e., independent of any specific GNSS.” Spec. 4. That said, if more than one GNSS adopted the IS-801 standard as their respective formats for PLD messages, the IS-801 standard format would become a “generic format,” as defined and claimed. First, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that McCasland teaches “a generic format (page 99, col. 2, last paragraph) and use of same with a plurality of types of [GNSSs] (page 99, col. 2, first complete paragraph),” and therefore makes up for the deficiencies in Gaal. Ans. 5, 7, 8-9, 10, 12, 13. McCasland, page 99, column 2, last paragraph, states that “[t]his paper proposes an alternative GNSS concept based on an open system architecture Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 6 (OSA) which adopts the GPS [SIS] interface as the framework for a set of interoperability standards” and that “when non-GPS satellites are launched, global users will be able to exploit those satellites along with the GPS satellites.” Accordingly, as recognized by Appellant, “McCasland is focused on standardized definitions for the satellite-to-user in[ter]faces.” App. Br. 5. We understand and agree with the Examiner’s finding that the Standardized SIS Interface (and standardized SIS interface definitions) is a generic format for communications between satellites and mobile stations, or users, which allows users to determine their positions based upon signals from a plurality of types of GNSSs. See McCasland, fig. 1. We are further persuaded that McCasland makes up for the deficiencies in Gaal, even though the generic format disclosed in McCasland is mainly described for communications between satellites and mobile stations, or users, and not from base stations to users, since Gaal is already relied upon for teaching the broadcast of the messages, in a standard format, from terrestrial base stations to mobile stations, and it is the generic format and use of same with a plurality of types of GNSSs that the Examiner and Appellant agree are missing.2 See McCasland, p. 102, col. 2, first full para., generally cited by the Examiner in rejecting claims 5, 10, 15, and 20, Ans. 6, 8, 10, 11-12 (“In an OSA for GNSS, the standardized interface definitions must -- at a minimum -- cover satellite-to-user interfaces.”). 2 We note that the Background of the Invention section of Appellant’s Specification states that a generic message structure for positioning assistance data, which is broadcast from base stations to a receiver, is known: “[a] generic (i.e. independent of any specific GNSS) A-GNSS message structure has been agreed in [the Third Generation Partnership Project] for dedicated (one transmitter to one receiver) positioning assistance data delivery.” Spec. 4. Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 7 Second, we are not persuaded that McCasland teaches away from combining Gaal and McCasland because McCasland states that “each ground-to-user interface can operate independently,” as argued by Appellant. App. Br. 6. Rather, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s determination that McCasland provides a reason to combine Gaal and McCasland, in view of McCasland’s suggestions to expand their proposed GNSS OSA Standardized SIS Interface, or generic format, to other GNSS components. The Examiner points out that McCasland continues in the same paragraph as cited by Appellant that “[t]here could be a case made for an interface between the GNSS ground systems for sharing data.” Ans. 15, citing McCasland, p. 103, col. 2, last para. to p. 104, col. 1, first para.; see also McCasland, p. 106, col. 1, first full para. (“[I]t may also be possible to develop standardized interface definitions between the GNSS component ground systems.”). Regarding a reason to combine, we note that McCasland also recommends that “given the large number of GPS receivers [or users] already in use around the world today, there are many advantages to be gained by a GNSS OSA basing its standardized SIS interface definitions as much as possible on the GPS SIS interface.” McCasland, p. 102, col. 2, third full para., generally cited by the Examiner, as “section entitled ‘Standardized Interface Definitions for a GNSS,’” in rejecting claim 5, 10, 15, and 20, Ans. 6, 8, 10, 11-12. In other words, McCasland suggests adopting the GPS format as the generic format. This further supports the Examiner’s determination that McCasland provides motivation to adopt the GPS format, namely, the IS-101 standard, for messages, which are sent between a base station and mobile stations, as described in Gaal, as a generic Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 8 format, as suggested by McCasland, for assisting mobile terminals determine their positions based on signals from a plurality of types of GNSSs. Finally, Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that while McCasland may discuss developing standard interface definitions between ground systems, McCasland is silent regarding whether these standard interface definitions will require generic messages, as recited in claim 1, since standardization only requires that different components be capable of being combined into a single system and is distinct from defining generic messages for use in communicating between the components, whether satellite or ground based. Reply Br. 2-3 (emphasis added). Since the Examiner did not have the opportunity to address this argument directly, we note that Table 1 in McCasland, entitled, “Proposed GNSS OSA Standardized SIS Interface Baseline Definitions,” summarizes the standard interface definitions referred to by Appellant. Regarding whether these standardized interface definitions will require generic messages, we reproduce below the paragraph from McCasland that describes the information presented in Table 1, which appears to expressly state that multiple GNSSs may be required to transmit data according to a generic message format (e.g., the GPS message format) defined in Table 1. Baseline Summary. The baseline proposed GNSS OSA standardized SIS interface definitions are summarized in Table 1. Since these proposed definitions are based on the current GPS SIS interface, it should be no surprise that the current GPS SIS interface complies with them in their entirety. What many readers may not recognize is that there are three other satellite systems in development whose SIS interfaces will also comply with Table 1 except for the data format and data rate . . . . These [Space Based GPS Augmentation Systems or] SBASs differ from Table 1 only by substituting a differently formatted Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 9 message transmitted at 500 bps as defined in [12]. Since there is nothing technical that would preclude these SBASs from instead transmitting data in accordance with Table 1, the development and international consensus surrounding these SBAS SIS interfaces validates the reasonability and achievability of the proposals in Table 1. McCasland, p. 105, Table 1 and col. 2, first full para. Furthermore, we note that in the Summary of McCasland, which lists recommendations for shared design principals between two types of GNNSs, namely, Galileo and GPS, McCasland discloses the “[a]doption of GPS-like and/or SBAS-like NAV and related message data rates and formats.” McCasland, p. 109, col. 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, based upon the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the standard format for messages sent between a base station and mobile stations, as described in Gaal, to include a generic format, as described in McCasland, for assisting mobile terminals determine their positions based on signals from a plurality of types of GNSSs. Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of the applied references, for claims 1-25 as grouped above, with Appellant's countervailing arguments for nonobviousness, and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by the appealed claims would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). Appeal 2012-005211 Application 12/008,703 10 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed. AFFIRMED tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation