Ex Parte Halivaara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2014

12008703 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2014)

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