Ex Parte OliverDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201511658718 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte TOBY OLIVER ____________________ Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11, and 12. Claims 2, 4, 8, and 10 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention relates to monitoring the movement of mobile communication devices (Spec. 1, ll. 4–5). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A system for monitoring movement, the system comprising: a plurality of receiving units, the plurality of receiving units being distributed over an area; and a control unit in communication with each of the plurality of receiving units; wherein each receiving unit is configured: to receive and to interpret mobile communication signals transmitted by plural mobile communication devices, to decode an identifier from a received mobile communication signal, to calculate a direction from which said mobile communication signal is was received, to record a time at which said mobile communication signal was received, and Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 3 to report to the control unit the identifier, the direction and the time relating to the mobile communication signal received from the mobile communication device; wherein the control unit is configured: to receive identifier, direction and time data relating to mobile communication devices from each of said plurality of receiving units, for data received from two different receiving units and including the same identifier, to determine whether the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier fall within a time window of predetermined width, if the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier do fall within a time window of predetermined width, to use the direction data corresponding to the time data to determine a position of the mobile communication device from which the corresponding mobile communication signal were received, if the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier do not fall within a time window of predetermined width, to discard the data, and to use the data to determine and record the movement of the mobile communication devices within the area. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Allen, Jr. US 6,484,035 B2 Nov. 19,2002 Anderson US 2003/0016174 A1 Jan. 23, 2003 Claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Allen. Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 4 II. ISSUES The main issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Anderson and Allen teaches or would have suggested a “if the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier do fall within a time window of predetermined width, to use the direction data;” and “if the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier do not fall within a time window of predetermined width, to discard the data,” as recited in claim 1. III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Anderson Anderson discloses a Wireless Location System that commands narrowband receivers connected to antennas used in location processing to receive RF data for a predetermined dwell time (¶0085). IV. ANALYSIS Appellant contends “Anderson does not disclose the use of two signals relating to two different transmissions of the mobile transmitter… to determine the location of the transmitter” since Anderson refers to “capturing data from within a single transmission” (App. Br. 8). Appellant also contends that “Anderson does not disclose that data received after the dwell time is discarded” (id.). Furthermore, although Appellant acknowledges that “Allen discloses the concept for a receiving unit to decode an identifier received from an MCU and to send the identifier to another network element,” Appellant contends “the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 5 obvious to combine this feature from Allen with the disclosure of Anderson” (App. Br. 6). However, the Examiner finds Anderson teaches “data received from two different receiving units” and that “data (received from two different receiving units and including the same identifier) is only received during the dwell time” (Ans. 3–4). The Examiner also finds “if data is received outside of the dwell time, such would not be considered for location determination (which would be analogous, in this case, to being discarded” (Ans. 4). The Examiner points out “Appellant makes no claim that said data must be from multiple transmissions” and thus finds “Anderson’s dwell time is analogous to Appellant’s claimed time window of predetermined width; both are used to preclude tracking errors” (id.). Furthermore, the Examiner finds “Anderson and Allen disclose similar technology in a similar field of endeavor” of “location determination in a wireless communication network” (Ans. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds “Anderson implicitly teaches decoding a terminal identifier from a signal received by a mobile device” (id.) while “Allen contains a comparable process of a receiving unit (base station) decoding terminal identification such as MIN/ESN, and forwarding terminal identification to a control module (different system)” (Ans. 3). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the references “to ensure adequate management of wireless resources, by tracking users according to their identifiers” (Fin. Rej. 3). We agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 6 We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although Appellant argues, “Anderson does not disclose the use of two signals relating to two different transmissions of the mobile transmitter… to determine the location of the transmitter” (App. Br. 8), such argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited language of the claims. As Examiner points out “Appellant makes no claim that said data must be from multiple transmissions” (Ans. 4). In particular, claim 1 only requires that each receiving unit is “configured” to receive signals transmitted by plural communication devices, but the control unit is configured to use direction data if the time data from “two different receiving units” and “corresponding to the same identifier” fall within “a time window of predetermined width” (claim 1). That is, contrary to Appellant’s contention, claim 1 only requires using direction data if the time data from the receiving units fall within a time window, including data from different units corresponding to the same identifier, wherein each receiving unit is configured to (capable of) receiving signals from plural communication devices. Thus, although Appellant contends “Anderson does not disclose the use of two signals relating to two different transmissions of the mobile transmitter… to determine the location of the transmitter” (App. Br. 8), we agree with the Examiner the claims do not require that “said data must be from multiple transmissions” (Ans. 4). Further, although Appellant’s contentions are directed to what Anderson does not disclose (App. Br. 8), the test for obviousness is not what the references show individually but what the combined teachings Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 7 would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Anderson discloses a plurality of receivers connected to antennas used in location processing to receive RF data for a predetermined dwell time (FF). That is, Anderson discloses and suggests using direction data for location processing if time data from the plurality of receivers, including receivers with the same identifier, fall within the dwell time, wherein each receiver is capable of receiving signals from plural communication devices (id.). We agree with the Examiner Anderson discloses and suggests, “if the time data from the two different receiving units and corresponding to the same identifier do fall within a time window of predetermined width, to use the direction data,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 4). Further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Anderson discloses and suggests, “if data is received outside of the dwell time, such would not be considered for location determination (which would be analogous, in this case, to being discarded” (Ans. 4). That is, Anderson discloses using direction data if the time data fall within the dwell time, and thus at least suggests not using/discarding the direction data if the time data fall outside of the dwell time. Appellant has provided no evidence that discarding unused data was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007), nor has Appellant presented evidence that the claimed combination of known elements would have yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find Appellant’s claimed invention is simply a combination of known teachings that would have realized a predictable result. Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 8 Appellant also contends, “the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine [the teaching of receiving an identifier from an MCU and sending the identifier to another network] from Allen with the disclosure of Anderson” (App. Br. 6). Appellant appears to view the combination in a different perspective than that of the Examiner. The issue here is not whether the skilled artisan would have bodily incorporated the entire system of Allen into the entire system of Anderson. Rather, the issue is whether the skilled artisan, upon reading Allen, would have found it obvious to decode an identifier and reporting that identifier to the control unit of Anderson. We agree with the Examiner's finding “Anderson and Allen disclose similar technology in a similar field of endeavor” of “location determination in a wireless communication network” (Ans. 2), wherein “Anderson implicitly teaches decoding a terminal identifier from a signal received by a mobile device” (id.) while “Allen contains a comparable process of a receiving unit (base station) decoding terminal identification such as MIN/ESN, and forwarding terminal identification to a control module (different system)” (Ans. 3). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings “to ensure adequate management of wireless resources, by tracking users according to their identifiers” (Fin. Rej. 3). Appellants have provided no evidence that combining such teachings was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162, nor has Appellants presented evidence that the Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 9 claimed combination of known elements would have yielded more than expected results. Rather, we find Appellants’ invention is simply a combination of known teachings that would have realized a predictable result. The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 over Anderson and Allen. Appellant does not provide arguments for claims 3, 5 and 6 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 8), and thus, claims 3, 5, and 6–8 fall with claim 1. As for claims 7, 9, 11, and 12, Appellant repeats the contention “it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have combined Anderson and Allen” and, concerning independent claim 7, Anderson does not disclose the claimed invention “as discussed above” (App. Br 9). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no error with the Examiner’s combination of the references and conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combination. Thus, we also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7, and claims 9, 11, and 12 depending therefrom over Anderson and Allen. Appeal 2012-010506 Application 11/658,718 10 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5–7, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 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 lv Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation