DALI SYSTEMS CO. LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

14183297 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/183,297 02/18/2014 Shawn Patrick Stapleton 10333-48 8483
167137 7590 04/01/2020
SHERIDAN ROSS PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
ISSING, GREGORY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
jvick@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN PATRICK STAPLETON
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, 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 1–8, 10, 11, and 14–20. See Final Act.
1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Dali Systems Co.
Ltd. Br. 3.
2 The Final Office Action from which this Appeal is taken, dated April 20,
2018, refers extensively to the Non-Final Office Action dated October 17,
2017, and our discussion below refers to the Non-Final Office Action where
appropriate.
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a system for providing indoor location
information using analog off-air access units. Claims 1 and 6 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A system for indoor localization using GPS signals in a
Distributed Antenna System, the system comprising:
a plurality of Off-Air Access Units (OAAUs), each of the
plurality of OAAUs including a directional antenna operable to
receive an analog GPS satellite signal from at least one of a
subset of a plurality of GPS satellites;
a plurality of remote units (RUs) located at remote
locations characterized by a positional offset from each of the
plurality of OAAUs, wherein the plurality of RUs are operable
to receive a plurality of analog GPS satellite signals from the
plurality of OAAUs; and
a plurality of analog delay blocks in each RU of the
plurality of RUs, each of the plurality of analog delay blocks
being configured to individually delay each analog GPS satellite
signal of the plurality of analog GPS satellite signals based on
the positional offset from an individual OAAU associated with
the analog GPS satellite signal to each RU of the plurality of
RUs, and
wherein each of the plurality of RUs is operable to
transmit a plurality of delayed analog GPS satellite signals to
provide indoor localization.
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Corman US 5,784,028 July 21, 1998
Bailey US 2006/0208946 A1 Sept. 21, 2006
Vervisch-Picois3 WO 2012/001665 A1 Jan. 5, 2012
REJECTION
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Corman, Bailey, and Vervisch-Picois.
OPINION
Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1–8, 10, 11, and 14–
20, as a group. See Br. 11–17. We select claim 1 as representative of the
group, and claims 2–8, 10, 11, and 14–20 stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Corman discloses most of the limitations of
claim 1 including an off-air access unit (OAAU) that receives signals from a
plurality of GPS satellites, but does not disclose a plurality of OAAUs each
with a directional antenna. See Non-Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner finds
that Bailey discloses a plurality of OAAUs having directional antennas
instead of an omni-directional antenna. Id. at 7. The Examiner considers
that it would have been obvious to substitute a plurality of directional
antennas for Corman’s single antenna 14 to “giv[e] each repeater its own
patch of sky to be repeated into the systems working environment. Good
coverage attainability is expected with four repeater units accessing different

3 We refer to the US equivalent of Vervisch-Picois (US 2013/0113656 A1,
pub. May 9, 2013) available in the Image File Wrapper of the present
application.
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

4
satellites to achieve latitude, longitude and altitude measurements direct
from the GPS signal.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds that
Corman discloses a signal delay, but does not disclose a plurality of analog
delay blocks in each of the remote units. Id. at 8. The Examiner finds that
Vervisch-Picois discloses a plurality of repealites 3, which the Examiner
compares to delay blocks, and considers that it would have been obvious to
further modify Corman to include a plurality of delay blocks in each remote
unit, as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results with respect to “corrections for the path lengths
between the actual satellite and the receiver in order to determine a
position.” Id.

OAAU-Specific Positional Offset
Appellant argues that the references do not disclose a remote unit that
delays each of a plurality of analog GPS satellite signals based on an
OAAU-specific positional offset between the RU and the corresponding
OAAU. Br. 11. Appellant contends that Corman does not disclose this
limitation because Corman discloses “a single exterior receiver (e.g.,
antenna 14) to receive multiple satellite signals and a single interior
transmitter (e.g., repeater base station 16) to re-transmit the multiple
received satellite signals.” Br. 12. According to Appellant, Bailey does not
remedy the deficiencies of Corman because “none of the repeaters in Bailey
delay each of a ‘plurality of analog GPS satellite signals based on’ a OAAU-
specific positional offset because each of the repeaters 19 only receive
signals from a single antenna.” Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant
asserts that Vervisch-Picois also fails to remedy the deficiencies of Corman
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

5
because Vervisch-Picois also teaches a single exterior antenna 7 sending
satellite signals to an interior repeater 3. Br. 14.
The Examiner finds Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive for several
reasons. Ans. 5. First, the Examiner notes that Corman is not limited to a
single antenna 14 and a single base station 16 because Corman discloses a
system used within plural “obstructed areas,” and locates signal distribution
means 22 “on each floor of building 20,” as well as disclosing “at least one
repeater base station 16.” Id. at 5–6 (citing Corman, 3:30–32; 4:10–11)
(emphasis omitted). Second, according to the Examiner, Appellant does not
address the rejection of record and instead attacks the references
individually. Id. (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner
states that Bailey is cited to teach substituting a plurality of directional
antennas for the single omni-directional antenna, and the manner in which
Bailey operates is not prejudicial to the stated rejection. Ans. 7. The
Examiner states that Vervisch-Picois teaches a distribution means with a
plurality of delay blocks, and suggests “adding respective delays to each of a
plurality of indoor antenna to account for the delay due to the positional
offsets of respective antenna elements while allowing an indoor receiver to
operate for receiving a plurality of signals from a plurality of satellites (1–
j).” Id. at 9. The Examiner, thus, asserts that Appellant does not explain
why the combination of references does not meet the claim limitations. Id.
The Examiner has the better position. Specifically, we agree with the
Examiner that Corman is not limited to a single antenna or a single base
station, and as the Examiner correctly finds, the rejection replaces Corman’s
single antenna 14 with a plurality of antennas. Ans. 7. Each of the antennas
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

6
performs the same function that the single antenna does, i.e., “acquiring and
tracking navigation satellites (e.g., navigation satellites 12 . . . receiv[ing]
geolocation signals from the navigation satellites. . . . The geolocation
signals are reconfigured, in step 308, for differential geolocation signals with
appropriate delays using the extracted timing and almanac data.” Corman,
5:16–30; see also Ans. 7. Then, “the differential geolocation signals are
retransmitted, with the appropriate delays, within the obstructed area via a
repeater base station (e.g., repeater base station 16, FIG. 1) and a signal
distribution means (e.g., signal distribution means 22, Fig. 1).” Id. at 5:48–
52. The Examiner is thus proposing to use multiple antennas, each
performing the same function that the single antenna of Corman would
normally perform, to improve accuracy, as disclosed by Bailey. See Bailey
¶ 45; see also Non-Final Act. 7. Appellant does not assert that the
Examiner’s proposed substitution would have been beyond the capabilities
of one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, Appellant has not provided any
factual evidence or persuasive technical reasoning to contradict the
Examiner’s position regarding the propriety of the substitution (see Ans. 7–
8), and thus does not apprise us of error on this point.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s argument is
not persuasive because it does not address the combination of references
cited in the rejection. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based on combinations of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
at 1097. Here, the Examiner finds that Corman uses an OAAU that receives
GPS satellite signals, and uses a delay to retransmit to remote units (repeater
base stations 16), and relies on Bailey to teach a plurality of OAAUs. See
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

7
Non-Final Act. 6–7. The Examiner considers that “[t]he delays [in Corman]
are representative of the positional offset between the outdoor antenna
position and the distribution means 22 position.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
then relies on Vervisch-Picois to assign a delay to each of the retransmission
antennas based on the positional offset between the outdoor antenna and
each respective retransmission antenna. See id. Appellant’s argument as to
the deficiencies in Bailey and Vervisch-Picois with respect to a feature for
which these references is not relied upon does not apprise us of Examiner
error.

Renders Unsatisfactory
Appellant argues that modifying Corman to have a plurality of receive
aerials “would render Corman unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of
providing an accurate indoor location using a single omni-directional
antenna.” Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant contends that Corman’s position
estimation techniques “would have no use for multiple antennas because . . .
the method to retransmit differential geolocation signals within an obstructed
area disclosed by Corman would be frustrated [for] at least two reasons.” Id.
(emphasis omitted). First, according to Appellant, because a directional
antenna “may not receive four navigation satellite signals,” it is not apparent
how “Corman would combine signals to solve for the position and timing to
determine differential geolocation signals.” Id. (emphasis omitted). Second,
Appellant asserts that because Corman determines a range to each
navigation satellite from the receive aerial, it is not apparent “how the
method in Corman would determine an accurate position using ranges to a
plurality of receive aerials.” Br. 15–16 (emphasis omitted). Appellant thus
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

8
concludes that “modifying Corman in the manner suggested would lead to
inaccurate position data and would render Corman unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of providing an accurate indoor location using a single
omni-directional antenna.” Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that directional antennas still operate to
receive GPS signals from a plurality of satellites and allow the signals to be
transmitted into an obstructed (indoor) area. Ans. 9. The Examiner states,
for example, that four directional antennas could be placed on a rooftop,
aimed in different directions, and coupled to a single geolocation receiver,
which “would not render Corman unsatisfactory for any of its intended
purposes.” Id. at 10. The Examiner notes, moreover that Appellant does not
provide any evidence that Corman would perform unsatisfactorily by
substituting plural directional antennas for a single omni-directional antenna.
Id. According to the Examiner, a skilled artisan in the field of wireless
communication systems would know how to use plural directional antennas
to retrieve signals from satellites to determine position. Id.
We find unpersuasive Appellant’s argument that modifying Corman
to use plural directional antennas, as the Examiner proposes, would render
Corman unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The Examiner’s
modification comes directly from the disclosure of Bailey which discloses
that the view of twelve satellites “using a typical GPS receive—omni
directional—aerial . . . can be narrowed by using . . . directional aerials.”
Bailey ¶ 45. Thus, it is known to substitute directional antenna or aerial for
an omni-directional antenna. Given that it is known that plural directional
antennas can be used to receive GPS signals for “more accurately
estimating” location (Bailey ¶ 45), Appellant’s unsupported assertion that
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

9
“modifying Corman in the manner suggested would lead to inaccurate
position data and would render Corman unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose” is not persuasive. Nor do we agree with Appellant’s concern as to
“how the method in Corman would determine an accurate position using
ranges to a plurality of receive aerials.” Br. 15–16. Bailey discloses that
when using directional antennas, the solution is “to restrict the view to a
small quadrant of the sky for each repeater receive aerial thereby giving each
repeater its own patch of sky to be repeated into the systems working
environment.” Bailey ¶ 45; see also Non-Final Act. 7. Appellant does not
provide a persuasive reason why Bailey’s solution would not work equally
well in Corman, with each of the plurality of antennas duplicating the same
function that Corman’s single antenna performs.

Impermissible Hindsight
Appellant argues that “how the method in Corman would determine
the differential geolocation signals if there were a plurality of positions
based on each of the plurality of receive aerials . . . appears to be based on
knowledge gleaned only from the Appellant’s disclosure.” Br. 16 (emphasis
omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues that “the prior art is silent regarding
how an accurate position would be determined from signals received at a
plurality of directional aerials and is only present in the Appellant[’s]
specification.” Id. Appellant contends that because Appellant’s
Specification is the only disclosure of “‘a plurality of remote units (RUs)
located at remote locations characterized by a positional offset from each of
the plurality of OAAUs,’ as recited in claim 1 . . . the combination of
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

10
Corman and Bailey is an exercise of impermissible hindsight.” Id.
(emphasis omitted).
We find Appellant’s allegation that the Examiner relied on
impermissible hindsight unavailing. We note that the Examiner proposes to
modify Corman to use a plurality of antennas, as disclosed by Bailey; the
Examiner does not propose a bodily incorporation of Bailey’s antennas. See
Non-Final Act. 7. In the Examiner’s proposed modification, the plurality of
antennas would each operate in the same manner as Corman’s antenna 14 so
that “signal distribution means 22 receive a plurality of analog GPS signals
in their original or a modified form from the antenna 14 via the repeater
station 16,” and then using “‘spatially separated antenna units, dispersed at
different locations around the obstructed area’ in order to simulate the
original navigation signal while enabling the device to calculate position
based on distances between the dispersed antenna units.” Ans. 3–4 (citing
Corman 4:16–21; 5:31–33). Given that Bailey explicitly discloses
narrowing the view of a plurality of satellites by using directional antennas
instead of an omni-directional antenna so that each antenna looks at a “small
quadrant of the sky,” the Examiner’s use of the teachings in Bailey as to how
to use plural antennas is reasonable. Such a disclosure would commend
itself to a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to improve the accuracy
of determining the location of a person inside a building. The disclosures of
Bailey evidence that it is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art
to substitute plural directional antennas for an omni-directional antenna.
The Examiner has also provided reasoning to support the rejection, namely,
to “giv[e] each repeater its own patch of sky to be repeated into the systems
working environment” that would provide “[g]ood coverage attainability.”
Appeal 2019-005459
Application 14/183,297

11
Non-Final Act. 7 (emphasis omitted). This improvement is disclosed in
Bailey, rather than stemming from impermissible hindsight. See Bailey
¶ 45. Because the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification is
supported by rational underpinnings found in the prior art, we do not agree
that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible hindsight.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments for the patentability
of claim 1. However, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over Corman, Bailey, and Vervisch-Picois. Claims 2–8, 10,
11, and 14–20 fall with claim 1.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10, 11,
14–20
103(a) Corman, Bailey,
Vervisch-Picois
1–8, 10,
11, 14–20

Overall
Outcome
  1–8, 10,
11, 14–20

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