QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 24, 2020

2019004565 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 24, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/585,535 12/30/2014 Ayman Fawzy Naguib 140903 (898340) 3327
15093 7590 11/24/2020
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LUONG TRUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2698
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/24/2020 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcominst@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AYMAN FAWZY NAGUIB, HUI CHAO, and
SAUMITRA MOHAN DAS

Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–52. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “machine-based visual data
acquisition and processing for enabling location based services.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Representative Claims
Representative claim 31 under appeal reads as follows:
31. A device comprising:
a camera configured to acquire visual data;
a memory configured to store the visual data;
a transceiver configured to receive at least one wireless signal from an
at least one wireless access point; and
a processor configured to:
derive information comprising an address associated with the at least
one wireless access point from the at least one wireless signal; and
tag the visual data with the address associated with the at least one
wireless access point by including the information comprising the address in
metadata attached to the visual data; and
the transceiver further configured to:
transmit the visual data with the metadata to a remote server to
enable the remote server to use the metadata to crowdsource data
associated with the at least one wireless access point.

Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
A. Claims 31–35, 37–42, and 44–52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ogale et al., (US 8,818,706 issued August
26, 2014) in view of Feinberg et al., (US 2007/0073937 A1 published March
29, 2007) further in view of Strolia et al., (US 2014/0136098 A1 published
May 15, 2014).
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

3
B. Claims 36 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ogale, Feinberg, Strolia in further view of Fujii et al., (US
2008/0068456 A1 published March 20, 2008).
C. Claims 31, 37, 44, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ogale, Feinberg in further view of Smallwood et al.,
(US 9,769,434 B1 issued September 19, 2017 (filed July 31, 2014)).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response,
supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by
Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action from which this appeal is taken (see Final
Act. 2–15) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 10–14).
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.

Rejection of Representative Independent Claim 31 under § 103 over Ogale,
Feinberg, Stroila
Appellant contends Stroila fails to teach “enable the remote server to
use the metadata to crowdsource data associated with the at least one
wireless access point,” as recited in claim 31, and similarly recited in
independent claims 37, 44, and 49. Appeal Br. 10.
In particular, Appellant contends:
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

4
Stroila teaches the server generating a list of objects to be imaged, for
example, a newly constructed road building or point of interest. The
server then sends instructions to mobile devices near the object of
interest, and the mobile devices capture the images and return the
captured images to the server. See, Stroila, paragraph [0056]. In
paragraphs [0055]–[0060], Stroila provides several examples of kinds
of crowdsourcing, such as crowdsourcing for concerts, weather,
criminal activity, or compiling a photo journal of a trip. As can be
seen, in Stroila, any crowdsourcing is not related to data associated
with a wireless access point and hence Stroila, alone or in
combination with other cited references, fails to teach or render
obvious enabling a "remote server to use the metadata to crowdsource
data associated with the at least one wireless access point."
Appeal Br. 10–11.
Appellant’s arguments are misdirected and are not persuasive.
Appellant is attacking the Stroila reference, when the Examiner relies upon
the combination of Ogale, Feinberg, Stroila for teaching the claimed
“enable the remote server to use the metadata to crowdsource data associated
with the at least one wireless access point” feature. See Ans. 10–11.
In particular, the Examiner finds:
Ogale et al. discloses the transceiver configured to transmit the visual
data to a remote server to enable the remote server (the sensory data,
which includes images, Wi-Fi signal strength, is collected by client
device 160 or 170 and provided to the server 110, figure 1, column 5,
lines 8-19); Feinberg et al. discloses transmit the visual data with the
metadata to a remote server, the data associated with the at least one
wireless access point ("the captured information (e.g., access point
MAC address and SSID) of the most recently encountered wireless
network is associate with any images taken by the user. This data can
be stored directly into EXIF-compliant headers of the JPEG image file
written by the camera, ... , the server may then insert image location
tags into the EXIF headers of the image before transferring it to the
user's preferred online provider," paragraph [0085]). …Stroila et al.
discloses the server 125 is configured to coordinate crowd sourcing
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

5
applications using the automatic image capture; crowd sourcing
applications allow an external system to provision data collection by
the mobile device 122 and other mobiles device (figure 1, paragraphs
[0028], [0034], [0055]-[0060]). Therefore, combination of Ogale et al.
in view of Feinberg et al. and further in view of Stroila et al.
references disclose limitation "the transceiver further configured to:
transmit the visual data with the metadata to a remote server to enable
the remote server to use the meta data to crowdsource data associated
with the at least one wireless access point."
Ans. 10–11 (original emphases removed, panel’s emphases added).
In other words, the Examiner has rejected claim 31 in view of the
combination of references—Ogale, Feinberg, and Stroila—and the Examiner
has articulated how the cited references teach the recited limitations (id.); we
see no error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in this regard
because Appellant’s argument fails to address the actual reasoning of the
Examiner’s rejections.
Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In determining obviousness, a reference
“must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination
with the prior art as a whole.” Id. (emphasis added).
On this record, we are not persuaded that combining the respective
familiar elements of the cited Ogale, Feinberg, and Stroila references in the
manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

6
(Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007)).
Based upon our review of the record, we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness regarding Rejection A of representative
independent claim 31.
As to Appellant’s contentions regarding dependent claim 35 (Appeal
Br. 13), the Examiner has rebutted each of those arguments supported by
sufficient evidence. Ans. 13, 14. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by
reference.
In particular, we see no error in these unrebutted findings that:
Stroila et al. discloses the captured images may be sent to the server
125, and the captured images may be used to update a navigational
data base (see abstract, paragraph [0034]), or provide updates to a
map data base (paragraphs [0069]–[0070], 0077]). Note that the
navigation database or map database is a map associated with
locations, which correspond to the claimed "heat map" since the
"heatmap" is used to determine locations of the mobile device as
disclosed in the instant application, specification, paragraph [0050].
Ans. 14.

Rejection of Representative Independent Claim 31 under § 103 over Ogale,
Feinberg, Smallwood
Appellant contends Smallwood fails to teach “enable the remote
server to use the metadata to crowdsource data associated with the at least
one wireless access point,” as recited in claim 31, and similarly recited in
independent claims 37, 44, and 49. Appeal Br. 11-12.
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

7
In particular, Appellant contends “as used in Smallwood,
‘crowdsource’ has a generic meaning of receiving ideas from various end
users regarding a task or object in an image. Nothing in Smallwood
suggests enabling a ‘remote server to use the metadata to crowdsource data
associated with the at least one wireless access point.’” Appeal Br. 12.
Again, Appellant’s arguments are misdirected and are not persuasive.
Appellant is attacking the Smallwood reference, when the Examiner relies
upon the combination of Ogale, Feinberg, Smallwood for teaching the
claimed “enable the remote server to use the metadata to crowdsource data
associated with the at least one wireless access point” feature. See Ans. 12.
See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426 (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references.)” (Citations omitted).
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 31 over Ogale/Feinberg/
Smallwood, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning
(Ans. 12), which are incorporated herein by reference.
We note that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut the Examiner’s
responses to Appellant’s arguments. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive
rebuttal evidence or argument to persuade us otherwise, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claims 31–52.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31–52 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-004565
Application 14/585,535

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
31–35, 37–
42, 44-52
103 Ogale, Feinberg,
Stroila
31–35, 37–
42, 44-52

36, 43 103 Ogale, Feinberg,
Stroila, Fujii
36, 43
31, 37, 44,
49
103 Ogale, Feinberg,
Smallwood
31, 37, 44,
49

Overall
Outcome
31–52
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED