Ashjaee, Javad et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 3, 2021

2019004173 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021)

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.
13/228,348 09/08/2011 Javad Ashjaee 107579-1235168-001100US 7306
20350 7590 08/03/2021
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP - West Coast
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
ISSING, GREGORY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAVAD ASHJAEE and SERGEY YUDANOV
___________

Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and
SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL, Administrative Patent Judges.1

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6–19, 21–26, and 28–30. Claims 2, 5, 20,
and 27 have been canceled. An oral hearing was held on August 10, 2020.

1 Administrative Patent Judge Susan L. C. Mitchell has replaced
Administrative Patent Judge Philip J. Hoffmann on the panel. See Panel
Change Order, dated Feb. 2, 2021.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Javad GNSS, Inc.
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed Dec. 17, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

2
A transcript of that hearing is included in the record.3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to visualizing in-band interference
by a portable Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver, including
Global Positioning System (GPS), GLONASS, Galileo, and other satellite
navigation and positioning receivers.” Spec. ¶ 2, Fig. 1. Claims 1, 17, and
24 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
recites:
1. A handheld GNSS device for location information
determining signal strength data within an allocated GNSS
frequency band, the handheld GNSS device comprising:
a GNSS antenna mounted on the handheld GNSS device
for receiving a first received signal within the allocated GNSS
frequency band and a second received signal within the allocated
GNSS frequency band;
receiving circuitry coupled to the GNSS antenna for
demodulating the first received signal into a demodulated signal,
wherein the demodulated signal includes data from at least four
GNSS satellites;
a processor coupled to the receiving circuitry;
a display screen coupled to the processor for; and
memory coupled to the processor for storing instructions
executable by the processor, the instructions including
instructions for:
generating signal strength data for the first received
signal within the allocated GNSS frequency band;
determining an indication of magnitude of
interference associated with each of a plurality of

3 Transcript (“Tr.”), dated Aug. 28, 2020.
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

3
frequencies within the allocated GNSS frequency band;
identifying at least one of the plurality of
frequencies having an associated indication of magnitude
greater than an interference threshold value;
causing the display to display a graphical
representation of the signal strength data for at least a
portion of the allocated GNNS frequency band;
causing the display of at least one indicator overlaid
on the graphical representation that identifies the at least
one of the plurality of frequencies having the associated
indication of magnitude greater than the interference
threshold value within at least the displayed portion of the
allocated GNNS frequency band; and
implementing an in-band interference reduction
technique for the at least one of the plurality of frequencies
identified by the at least one indicator; and
determining a position for a point of interest based
upon the second received signal and the in-band
interference reduction technique.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 17–19, 21–26, and 28–30 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2010/0254437
A1, published Oct. 7, 2010), Woodings (US 8,006,195 B1, issued Aug. 23,
2011), Okanoue (US 7,158,769 B2, issued Jan. 2, 2007) or Danzeisen (US
5,025,208, issued June 18, 1991), and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”).4
II. Claims 10–16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tanaka, Woodings, Okanoue or Danzeisen, AAPA, and

4 The Examiner cites to paragraph 44 of the Specification as representing
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Office Action (“Final
Act.”) 2, dated Nov. 16, 2017.
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

4
Gum (US 8,185,134 B2, issued May 22, 2012), Tysowski (US 8,144,055
B2, issued Mar. 27, 2012), or Lee (US 8,411,164 B2, issued Apr. 2, 2013).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Tanaka, Woodings, Okanoue or Danzeisen, and AAPA
Independent claim 1 is directed to a handheld Global Navigation
Satellite System (“GNSS”) device including memory coupled to a processor
for storing instructions executable by the processor, with instructions for:
“determining a position for a point of interest based upon [a] second
received signal and [an] in-band interference reduction technique.” Appeal
Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). Independent claims 17 and 24 recite similar claim
limitations. Id. at 18–19, 20 (Claims App.).
Appellant contends that “[n]othing in Tanaka suggests ‘determining a
position for a point of interest based upon the second received signal and the
in-band interference reduction technique,’ where the in-band interference
reduction technique was implemented with [a] computer executable
instruction, as recited in independent claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10. In particular,
Appellant contends that “in the claimed invention, the recited in-band
interference reduction techniques are not physical changes to the system,” as
disclosed in Tanaka; rather, “the claimed invention[] allows for a user to
apply interference reduction techniques on the fly in response to visual
indications of the interference.” Id.; see also Tr. 4:19–6:12. According to
Appellant, “[t]his is simply not something that Tanaka ever contemplates
because the countermeasures that Tanaka refers to are physical changes to
the system that are only possible during design, testing, and installation.”
Appeal Br. 10. As such, Appellant contends that “Tanaka’s
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

5
‘countermeasures’ are not available when [a user is] actually using the GPS
module.” Id.; see also Reply Br. 2 (“Tanaka’s GPS device cannot
implement noise countermeasures when a user is using the GPS device
because Tanaka teaches that physical changes need to be made to the GPS
module.”).
In response to Appellant’s contention, the Examiner states that
Tanaka’s disclosure of the configuration of GPS module 110 is “not only
beneficial for the manufacturers of respective modules or electronic devices,
but also for the users of such electronic devices” and that the configuration
of the GPS system 100a shown in Figure 7 of Tanaka “is applicable to an
electronic device wherein the GPS module 110 is built onto the circuit board
in advance,” which, according to the Examiner, “clearly suggest[s] that the
countermeasures may be taken during use of the device.” Ans. 65 (emphasis
omitted) (citing Tanaka ¶¶ 93, 133); see also Tanaka Fig. 7; Final Act. 3
(The Examiner finding that Tanaka “teach[es] the use of the electronic
device for noise analysis and countermeasures thereof . . . , and further
teach[es] the beneficial use for both manufacturers as well as users of the
electronic devices” and that “[t]he use of a countermeasure responsive to
noise analysis would suggest to a skilled artisan in the field to take measures
to reduce the effect of the noise which would be applicable to any
subsequent use of the device.” (citing Tanaka ¶¶ 131, 133)).
We find Appellant’s position persuasive for the following reasons.
First, we agree with Appellant that Tanaka discloses “making physical
architectural changes (e.g., using shield materials, changing circuit structure,

5 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Mar. 7, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

6
antenna shape, or the layout of elements . . .) during testing, design, or
manufacture of a GPS system in order to reduce the system noise.” Reply
Br. 2;6 see also id. at n.1; Appeal Br. 9–10; Tanaka ¶¶ 9, 85, 131. Second,
Appellant correctly points out that in the Answer, the Examiner only
addresses a portion of paragraph 133 of Tanaka. Reply Br. 3–4;7 see also
Ans. 6. In its entirety, paragraph 133 of Tanaka discloses that
[t]he configuration of the GPS module 110 and display module
160 in accordance with the embodiment described above is not
only beneficial for the manufacturers of respective modules or
electronic devices, but also for the users of such electronic
devices. By using car navigation equipment implementing this
configuration of the GPS module 110 and display module 160,
the user is able to determine the optimal installation position of
the antenna or main unit of the equipment while viewing the on-
screen information.
Tanaka ¶ 133 (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that the above italicized portion of Tanaka
describes the user’s ability “to move things around during installation,” i.e.,
the user can “figure out the best physical configuration of [the] GPS system
while installing it.” Tr. 17:1–5; see also Reply Br. 4 (Appellant contending
that this portion of paragraph 133 of Tanaka discloses (1) “making physical
changes to the system (installation locations in this example) for purposes of
reducing system noise” and (2) “using the physical noise countermeasure
techniques before the normal operation of the GPS system.”); Appeal Br. 10
(“Tanaka . . . states that its system is useful when installing GPS modules so
that physical changes to the system can be made.” (citing Tanaka ¶ 133)).

6 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 7, 2019.
7 Appellant cites to paragraph 131 rather than to paragraph 133 of Tanaka.
Reply Br. 3–4. We consider this an inadvertent typographical error.
Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

7
We further agree with Appellant that nothing in paragraph 133 of Tanaka
suggests that the user is implementing a software solution, i.e.,
implementing an interference reduction technique, to get a GPS location
while using the device. See Tr. 16:2–17:9; see also Reply Br. 2–4; Appeal
Br. 9–10.
Third, we agree with Appellant that paragraph 93 of Tanaka “merely
states that a GPS device can be designed into a mobile phone handset or
other device” and that nothing in paragraph 93 of Tanaka “suggests that
noise countermeasures can be implemented by an end user of a mobile
phone handset or other device” while the end user is using any of these
devices. Reply Br. 4; see also Tr. 11:3–12:6. Consequently, based on the
portions of Tanaka cited by the Examiner, we agree with Appellant that
“Tanaka’s ‘countermeasures’ are not available when [a user is] actually
using the GPS module.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 9; Reply Br. 2–4;
Final Act. 3; Ans. 6. Stated differently, we agree with Appellant none of the
portions of Tanaka relied upon the Examiner “teach[es] any techniques that
a user can use to reduce interference while [the user is] using the GPS
device.” Reply Br. 2; see also id. at 3–4; Appeal Br. 9–10; Final Act. 3;
Ans. 6.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6–9, 17–19, 21–26, and 28–30 as
unpatentable over Tanaka, Woodings, Okanoue or Danzeisen, and AAPA.

Appeal 2019-004173
Application 13/228,348

8
Obviousness over Tanaka, Woodings, Okanoue or Danzeisen, AAPA, and
Gum, Tysowski, or Lee
The Examiner relies on the same unsupported findings based on
Tanaka for claims 10–16 as those discussed above for independent claim 1.
See Final Act. 4. The Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Gum,
Tysowski, or Lee to remedy the deficiencies of Tanaka addressed above.
Accordingly, for reasons similar to those presented above for claim 1,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10–16 as unpatentable
over Tanaka, Woodings, Okanoue or Danzeisen, AAPA, and Gum,
Tysowski, or Lee.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 6–9,
17–19, 21–26,
28–30
103(a) Tanaka, Woodings,
Okanoue, Danzeisen,
AAPA8
1, 3, 4, 6–9,
17–19, 21–26,
28–30
10–16 103(a) Tanaka, Woodings,
Okanoue, Danzeisen,
AAPA, Gum,
Tysowski, Lee9
10–16
Overall
Outcome
1, 3, 4, 6–19,
21–26, 28–30

REVERSED

8 The rejection is stated in the alternative, but is addressed in the table as a
whole because the outcome is the same for each alternative.
9 The rejection is stated in the alternative, but is addressed in the table as a
whole because the outcome is the same for each alternative.