Ex Parte Hoj

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

12083825 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/083,825 05/20/2008
30593 7590 09/20/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
lb Haaning Hoj
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
36731-000071/US/NPB 2548
EXAMINER
KING JR., JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IB HAANING HOJ
Appeal2016-007252 1
Application 12/083,8252
Technology Center 3600
Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, AMEE A. SHAH, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-13, and 16-30. We have
jurisdiction under § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision references Appellant's Specification filed April 18, 2008
("Spec."), Appeal Brief filed August 24, 2015 ("Appeal Br."), and
Reply Brief filed July 19, 2016 ("Reply Br."), as well as the Examiner's
Answer mailed May 27, 2016 ("Ans.") and Final Office Action mailed
June 24, 2014 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellant identifies CarTime Technologies A/S as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention "relates to a system or a method for automatic payment
or automatic registration of traffic related fees for vehicles, such as parking
fees or road taxes in relation to road pricing." Spec. 6:2--4. Claims 1 and 13
are the independent claims on appeal. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for automatic payment of parking fees for
vehicles, the system comprising:
a plurality of mobile units, each mobile unit being adapted
to be positioned in a vehicle, and
a base unit being adapted to communicate with the
plurality of mobile units,
wherein each mobile unit includes a device for
determining when the vehicle is in a parked state, and a
communication device for transmitting the determination to the
base unit in form of a plurality of raw position observables,
wherein the base unit includes:
a communication device for communicating with
the plurality of mobile units, and
a position determining device including a processor
for processing said raw position observables so as to
determine a non-corrected position of the vehicle in
relation to pre-loaded parking area information stored in
or accessible from the base unit,
wherein the position determining device includes a first
position receiver module for receiving and processing satellite-
based raw position observables and a second position receiver
module for receiving position correction signals, the processor
further calculating a corrected position of the vehicle in case the
non-corrected position of the vehicle falls within a set range from
a parking area, and comparing the calculated corrected position
of the vehicle with the pre-loaded parking area information
stored in or accessible from the base unit, and
wherein the corrected position is calculated by applying
position correction signals directly to the raw position
2
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
observables to be corrected prior to computation of the corrected
position.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Katz
0 lague et al.
Levy
US 2002/0109610 Al
US 2005/0246093 Al
EP O 952 557 A2
Aug. 15, 2002
Nov. 3, 2005
Oct. 27, 1999
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
("Olague")
I. claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Levy and Olague; and
II. claims 10, 13, and 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Levy, Olague, and Katz.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 as a group.
Appeal Br. 11-21; Reply Br. 2-8. vVe select independent claim 1 as
representative, and the remaining claims of the group stand or fall with
independent claim L 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Levy discloses
the invention substantially as claimed, except for the limitation reciting "in
case the non-corrected position of the vehicle falls within a set range from a
parking area." Final Act. 4--5. For this limitation, the Examiner relies on
3
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
Olague (id. at 5), and determines it would have been obvious to combine the
teachings of Levy and Olague to reduce computation by reserving correction
computation for vehicles near the parking lot (id. at 6).
Appellant contends Levy does not disclose "wherein the corrected
position is calculated by applying position correction signals directly to the
raw position observables to be corrected prior to computation of the
corrected position" as recited in independent claim 1 because Levy discloses
a DGPS system. Appeal Br. 12. According to Appellant, Levy's DGPS
system uses differences in GPS observables rather than absolute
observations, and does not provide a self-contained positioning system of a
GPS system, as claimed. Id. Levy, however, discloses using DGPS to
obtain higher positioning accuracy, and explicitly teaches that the DGPS
correction data "can be computed together with the location signal obtained
by the GPS receiver to provide a more accurate ( corrected) location." Levy
,r 50. Given that Levy discloses using the DGPS correction data, i.e.,
position correction signals, with the location signal obtained by the GPS
receiver, i.e., raw position observables, to provide a more accurate location,
Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding that Levy
discloses this limitation. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6.
Appellant also asserts that the Examiner incorrectly relies on Levy's
"position fixes," which may be in the form of geographical coordinates such
as latitude and longitude, for disclosing the recited "raw position
observables" because "raw position observables" are fundamentally different
from latitude and longitude. Reply Br. 2---6. Appellant's argument is not
persuasive of error because the Examiner is not relying on "position fixes"
or latitude and longitude coordinates for disclosing "raw position
4
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
observables." To the contrary, the Examiner finds Levy's raw GPS signals
disclose the recited "raw position observables." Ans. 6 ("Levy discloses that
it is known in the art to receive GPS signals (raw position observables) via a
GPS receiver and also to utilize such raw signals to calculate a more
accurate corrected position (e.g., DGPS).").
Appellant further argues the combined teachings of Levy and Olague
would not result in the limitation of independent claim 1 reciting
the processor further calculating a corrected position of the
vehicle in case the non-corrected position of the vehicle falls
within a set range from a parking area, and comparing the
calculated corrected position of the vehicle with the pre-loaded
parking area information stored in or accessible from the base
unit
because Olague does not disclose the recited two-step calculation where a
corrected position of the vehicle is calculated in a specific case when an
uncorrected position of the vehicle falls within a set range from a parking
area. Appeal Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 7. The Examiner, however, is not
relying solely on Olague for the recited two-step calculation, but rather on
the combination of Levy and Olague. Levy teaches that DGPS can be used
to calculate a corrected position of the vehicle when higher positioning
accuracy is desired. Levy ,r 50. Olague teaches that position integrity, i.e.,
accuracy, is indicated by a position being inside or outside a closed area,
nearer than a configured distance to a configured position, or farther than a
configured distance to a configured position. Olague ,r 54. Given that Levy
discloses calculating a corrected position when the non-corrected position is
inaccurate, which Olague teaches is indicated by the position being relative
to an area or distance, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
5
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
Examiner's determination that the combined teachings of Levy and Olague
would result in this limitation.
Appellant additionally argues that there would have been no
motivation to combine the teachings of Levy and Olague because there are
fundamental differences between Levy's DGPS positioning system and
Olague's SBAS positioning system. Appeal Br. 15-19. According to
Appellant, in light of these differences, the references teach away from the
Examiner's proposed combination, and the Examiner's proposed
modification changes the principle of operation of Levy's positioning
system. Id. at 18-19. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of error
because it is not commensurate with the Examiner's proposed combination.
The Examiner is not proposing to modify Levy's disclosed DGPS system
with some teaching regarding Olague's SBAS system. Rather, the Examiner
is proposing to modify Levy's disclosure of a system for charging for
vehicle parking, which uses DGPS to more accurately determine a vehicle's
position, to include Olague's teaching of how position accuracy is indicated
by a vehicle's position relative to an area or distance. Final Act. 4---6.
Appellant also asserts the Examiner has not provided an explicit
rationale for combining the teachings of Levy and Olague. Appeal Br. 19-
20. We disagree. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to modify Levy's disclosure of using
DGPS correction data when the non-corrected position is inaccurate with
Olague's teaching of positioning accuracy being indicated by a vehicle's
position relative to an area or distance for the purpose of reducing
computation costs by reserving correction computations based on the
vehicle's position relative to an area or distance. Final Act. 6; see also KSR
6
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 F .3d 398, 417 (2007) ("The combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results."). Appellant does not address
this rationale and does not apprise us of error.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1, with claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 falling
therewith.
Re} ection II
Independent claim 13
In rejecting independent claim 13, the Examiner determines the
combined teachings of Levy and Olague would result in the invention
substantially as claimed. Final Act. 8. The Examiner acknowledges that
although Levy discloses providing a number of position observables, Levy
does not disclose providing them per time. Id. For this, the Examiner relies
on Katz (id.), and determines it would have been obvious to modify Levy's
disclosure to add Katz's teaching of providing per time units to have
redundancy to recover from lost signals and to prevent fraud (id. at 8-9).
Appellant argues independent claim 13 is allowable for the same
reasons as independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 21-22. These arguments are
not convincing for the reasons set forth above with respect to independent
claim 1.
Appellant additionally asserts that Katz does not teach providing
position observables per time because Katz's authorization signal is
performed only at the start and end of the time session. Appeal Br. 22.
7
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
Appellant's argument is not persuasive of error because independent
claim 13 does not require providing position observables throughout the
time session. Rather, independent claim 13 recites "providing a plurality of
raw position observables per time." As the Examiner finds, Katz explicitly
teaches providing authorization signals periodically. Final Act. 8; Katz ,r 35.
Appellant also asserts Katz's authorization signal does not correspond
to "position observables." Appeal Br. 22. Appellant's argument does not
apprise us of error because the Examiner is not relying on Katz for teaching
position observables. Rather, as set forth above, the Examiner relies on
Levy for disclosing position observables and on Katz for teaching per time
units. Final Act. 8.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13. We, therefore, sustain the
rejection of independent claim 13.
Claims 10 and 16-30
Appellant argues claims 10 and 16-30 are allowable for the same
reasons as independent claims 1 and 13. Appeal Br. 21-22. These
arguments are not convincing for the reasons discussed supra.
Appellant further contends Katz does not relate to communication of
position-related data between a central computer system and portable
transceivers. Appeal Br. 23; Reply Br. 8-9. As set forth above, however,
the Examiner is not relying on Katz for teaching position-related data.
Rather, the Examiner relies on Levy for disclosing position observables and
on Katz for teaching per time units. Final Act. 8.
8
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
To the extent Appellant is asserting that Katz is non-analogous art to
the claimed invention, we disagree. To determine whether a reference is
analogous prior art, we consider: (l) whether the reference is from the same
field of as the inventor's endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and,
(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether
the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Here, Katz is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant. Appellant's
Specification explains that the present invention "relates to a system, a
method and a mobile unit/mobile device for accurately determining the
position of a portable or moveable unit, such as for example a vehicle," and
"further relates to automatic payment or registration of traffic-related fees or
taxes, such as for example parking fees or road taxes." Spec. 1 :3---6.
Similarly, Katz teaches that the disclosed invention "relates to systems and
methods for monitoring and controlling usage of ... vehicle parking
spaces." Katz ,r 2. Both the claimed invention and Katz are in the field of
endeavor of controlling the usage of parking spaces, and, therefore, are
analogous art.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claims 10 and 16-30. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 8-13, and 16-30 is
affirmed.
9
Appeal2016-007252
Application 12/083,825
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10