Ex Parte Oliver

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2015

11658718 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015)

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