Avago Technologies International Sales Pte, Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2020

14600961 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
14/600,961 01/20/2015 Charles Abraham 3875.2190005 8553
49579 7590 04/02/2020
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ISSING, GREGORY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte CHARLES ABRAHAM,
FRANK VAN DIGGELEN, MATTHEW RIBEN, and
JAMES W. LAMANCE
__________

Appeal 2019-004342
Application 14/600,961
Technology Center 3600
__________

Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–42. Claims 1–20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 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 Avago
Technologies International Sales PTE. Limited. Appeal Br. (“Appeal. Br.”)
3, filed Dec. 21, 2018.
Appeal 2019-004342
Application 14/600,961

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “generally relates to generating satellite
tracking information for earth orbiting satellites.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 21 and
31 are independent.
Claim 21 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and recites:
21. A method for generating requested satellite orbit data, the
method comprising:
measuring, at a tracking station, motion of a satellite over
a measurement period;
calculating and storing satellite tracking data based on the
measuring;
receiving a request, from a remote device, for the
requested satellite orbit data that specifies a desired time interval;
generating the requested satellite orbit data for the desired
time interval using an orbit model; and
transmitting the requested satellite orbit data to the remote
device.
THE REJECTION2,3
Claims 21–424 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fan (US 7,574,215 B1, issued Aug. 11, 2009) and
Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).

2 In the Final Office Action, the drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.83(a). See Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 2, dated May 23, 2018.
However, the objection is not within the jurisdiction of the Board. See
37 C.F.R. § 1.181.
3 The following rejection and objection have been withdrawn: (1) claims 21–
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurby (US
5,999,125, issued Dec. 7, 1999) and AAPA (see Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”) 3, dated Mar. 14, 2019; Final Act. 10–12) and (2) the objection to
the Specification under 37 C.F.R. 1.75(d)(1) (see Advisory Action (“Adv.
Act.”) 2, dated Aug. 31, 2018; Final Act. 6).
4 We note that claim 38 recites “The system of claim 11, . . . .” Appeal Br.
18 (Claims App.). However, claim 11 has been canceled. See id. at 15.
Appeal 2019-004342
Application 14/600,961

3
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 21 is directed to a “method for generating
requested satellite orbit data,” in which the method includes, among other
things, the steps of “receiving a request, from a remote device, for the
requested satellite orbit data that specifies a desired time interval” and
“generating the requested satellite orbit data for the desired time interval.”
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.; emphasis added). Independent claim 31 is
directed to a “system for generating requested satellite orbit data,” in which
the system includes, among other things, “a distribution server configured to
receive a request, from a remote device, for the requested satellite orbit data
that specifies a desired time interval and to generate the requested satellite
orbit data for the desired time interval.” Id. at 16–17 (emphasis added).
In the Final Office Action, it appears that the Examiner finds Fan
discloses these limitations of claims 21 and 31. See Final Act. 7 (citing Fan
6:31–44, 7:27–28).5
Appellant contests the Examiner’s finding that Fan discloses a request
for satellite orbit data that specifies “a desired time interval.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues that instead, Fan “merely describes that the request for the
satellite information may occur at a particular time.” Id.
The Examiner responds by reproducing passages from Fan’s
disclosure as cited in the Final Office Action. Ans. 3–4. The Examiner
states that “[s]uch language suggests to the skilled artisan that the

5 The Examiner relies on AAPA for disclosing calculating satellite tracking
data based on the measuring of the motion of a satellite and using an orbit
model. See Final Act. 8–10.

Appeal 2019-004342
Application 14/600,961

4
terminology associated with ‘time’ is not a single instance of time, but rather
suggests a time interval” and that “[i]n its conventional scope and
understanding, ‘time’ can be referenced to minutes, hours, days, months, etc.
and encompasses both a particular period/interval as well as a measurement
on a clock.” Id. at 4.
Appellant has the better position here. The Examiner has the initial
duty of supplying the requisite factual basis and may not, because of doubts
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded
assumptions, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In this case,
the relevant passages from Fan cited by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer are: “mobile unit 22 transmits a data packet to
information processing station 16 through data network 20 requesting
satellite information for specific GPS satellites at a specified time” (Fan
6:39–42; emphasis added) and “[m]obile unit 22 also specifies the time for
which the ephemeris constants information are needed” (id. at 7:27–28;
emphasis added); see also Final Act. 6–10; Ans. 4.
Although the Examiner is correct in stating that “[i]n its conventional
scope and understanding, ‘time’ can be referenced to minutes, hours, days,
months, etc. and encompasses both a particular period/interval as well as a
measurement on a clock” (Ans. 4; emphasis added), the Examiner does not
direct us to any disclosure from Fan, other than the second passage, to show
that Fan’s usage of the term “time” in the first passage encompasses a time
interval. The Examiner does not explain why the phrase “ephemeris
constants information are needed” would require “time” to be interpreted as
a time interval rather than an instant in time. Fan 7:27–28. We note that this
Appeal 2019-004342
Application 14/600,961

5
passage discloses “ephemeris constants,” i.e., in plural form rather than
singular form. However, a plurality of an ephemeris constant in this context
may be in regard to a position for a plurality of satellites, rather than a
plurality of positions for a single satellite, i.e., “satellite orbit data that
specifies a desired time interval.” Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner
that Fan’s second passage shows that Fan’s usage of the term “time” in the
first passage encompasses a time interval, rather than an instant in time. As
such, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s
determination that claims 21 and 31 are obvious over Fan and AAPA.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21–42 is not sustained.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–42 103(a) Fan, AAPA 21–42

REVERSED