Ex Parte 7,158,080 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2012

95001372 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2012)

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.
95/001,372 06/08/2010 7,158,080 333515-600004 1643
26111 7590 03/19/2012
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
ENGLISH, PETER C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

SiRF TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Requester

v.

GLOBAL LOCATE, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B21
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, RAE LYNN P. GUEST and
JOSIAH C. COCKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

COCKS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The patent under reexamination (the “’080 Patent”) issued to Frank
van Diggelen on January 2, 2007 from Application 10/674,267 filed
September 29, 2003.
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Summary
Patent Owner Global Locate, Inc. (“Global Locate”)2 appeals under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2,
and 22 as unpatentable over prior art.3 Third-Party Requester SiRF
Technology, Inc. (“SiRF”)4 has filed no briefs in connection with this
appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a).
An oral hearing was conducted on March 7, 2012. A transcript of that
hearing will be made of record in due course.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 22 over
the prior art of record.
Related Judicial and Other Proceedings
Global Locate identifies the following proceedings in its Appeal Brief
as related to this appeal (App. Br. 3):
1. A proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission,
Washington D.C., Inv. No. 337-TA-602, in which a Final Determination of
the Commission was issued on January 27, 2009.

2 See Patent Assignment Abstract of Title, Reel 014941 Frame 0617
which was entered into the record of this proceeding as “Title Report” on
June 16, 2010.

3 See Global Locate’s Appeal Brief filed July 18, 2011 (“App. Br.”)

4 See “INTER PARTES REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION” filed
June 8, 2010.

Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

3
2. A proceeding before U.S. District Court styled Broadcom Corp.
v. SiRF Technology, Inc. and CSR plc, SACV 08-546 JVS (MLGx), now
settled.
The Invention
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for acquiring satellite
signals using “long term satellite tracking data” received at a remote
receiver. (‘080 Patent, Abstract.)
The three claims involved in this appeal, claims 1, 2, and 22 are
reproduced below (App. Br. 26, Claims App’x.):
1. A method, comprising:
receiving long term satellite tracking data at a remote receiver
from a server;
computing acquisition assistance data using said long term
satellite tracking data at said remote receiver; and
receiving satellite signals at said remote receiver using said
acquisition assistance data.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
computing position of said remote receiver using said satellite
signals and said long term satellite tracking data.

22. A receiver, comprising:
a communications transceiver for receiving long term satellite
tracking data from a server; and
a microcontroller for computing acquisition assistance data
using said long term satellite tracking data; and
a satellite signal receiver for receiving satellite signals using
said acquisition assistance.

Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

4
The Prior Art
Ramesh 6,636,740 B1 Oct. 21, 2003

Interface Control Document Navstar GPS Space Segment/Navigation User
Interfaces, October 10, 1993. (“ICD-GPS-200C”)

Yilin Zhao, Mobile Phone Location Determination and Its Impact on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEE Transactions On Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 55-64, March 2000. (“Zhao-1”)

Yilin Zhao, Standardization of Mobile Phone Positioning for 3G Systems,
IEEE Communications Magazine, pp. 108-16, July 2002. (“Zhao-2”)

The Involved Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Zhao-1.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Zhao-2.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ramesh and ICD-GPS-200C.
B. ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner correctly find that Zhao-1discloses the use of
“long term satellite tracking data” as that term is defined in the ‘080 Patent?
2. Did the Examiner correctly determine that the teachings of
Zhao-1 or Ramesh, each taken with ICD-GPS-200C, account for “long term
satellite tracking data”?
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

5
3. Did the Examiner correctly determine that Zhao-2 accounts for
the claimed feature of “receiving long term satellite tracking data from a
server”?
C. ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
A central issue arising in this appeal involves the meaning of the term
“long term satellite tracking data” appearing in each of claims 1, 2, and 22.
According to the Examiner, the above-noted term is “defined” in the ‘080
Patent as tracking data that is valid for a period that is “longer than about 4
hours.” (E.g., Ans. 4:16-17.) As apparent support for that definition, the
Examiner points to the declaration of Mr. Thomas A. Stansell, Jr.5 (Ans.
8:17-9:2), in which Mr. Stansell testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have understood that “long term satellite tracking data” means
“satellite tracking data with a period of validity of greater than 4 hours.”
(Stansell Decl. p. 4, ¶ 9.)
Global Locate disputes the accuracy of the definition attributed to
“long term satellite tracking data” by the Examiner. Global Locate contends
that the ‘080 Patent does indeed set forth a special definition for the meaning
of the pertinent term, but the definition is distinct from that advanced by the
Examiner. (App. Br. 8-10.) In particular, Global Locate contends that the
meaning of “long term satellite tracking data” is set forth, for instance, at
column 5, lines 13-28 of the specification of the ‘080 Patent, and defines the

5 The “Declaration of Thomas A. Stansell, Jr.” (“Stansell Decl.”) was
filed by SiRF on December 22, 2010.

Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

6
term as satellite tracking data “which is ‘valid for a longer period of time as
compared to ephemeris data broadcast by the satellites.’” (Id. at 8:14-9:4.)
“Ephemeris data” is described in the ‘080 Patent as “satellite-positioning
data” that is transmitted from Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to
a receiver. (‘080 Patent 1:19-28.) Global Locate also points to the
declaration of Dr. Michael S. Braasch6, in which Dr. Braasch testifies that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the ‘080 Patent
defines “long term satellite tracking data” as “a set of orbital and/or clock
data parameters that is valid longer in time than broadcast ephemeris data.”
(Braasch Decl. p. 3, ¶ 10.)
We are not persuaded that the meaning of “long term satellite tracking
data” advanced by the Examiner is adequately supported in the record. It is
clear from the content of the ‘080 Patent that “long term satellite tracking
data” is a term having a particular meaning which is distinguished from
broadcast ephemeris data and represents tracking data with extended validity
as compared with the ephemeris data. (‘080 Patent 5:14-31.) As explained
in the ‘080 Patent, while broadcast ephemeris data is “typically only valid
between 2 and 4 hours,” long term satellite tracking data is “valid for a long
period as compared to the ephemeris data broadcast by the satellites,” for
example, “six hours,” or even as long as “four days.” (Id.) Specifically, the
‘080 Patent explains that “[a]s such, the satellite tracking data delivered to
the remote receivers 104 may be referred to herein as ‘long term satellite

6 The “Declaration of Michael S. Braasch Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132”
(“Braasch Decl.”) was initially entered into the record on November 30,
2010 and was also submitted as an exhibit accompanying Global Locate’s
Appeal Brief filed July 18, 2011.
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

7
tracking data’ in order to distinguish such data from the broadcast
ephemeris[.]” (Id.) Thus, “long term satellite tracking data” is expressly
distinguished from broadcast ephemeris data and includes an extended
duration of validity as compared with that ephemeris data.
The record also establishes that while broadcast ephemeris data may
have a “typical” period of validity of between two and four hours, the
occurrence of validity periods that are not typical, e.g., lasting longer than
four hours, are recognized in the art. Indeed, each of Dr. Braasch and Mr.
Stansell testify that while four hours may be typical, those of ordinary skill
in the art knew that validity periods of longer duration occur in some
situations or circumstances. (Braasch Decl., p.4, ¶ 117; Stansell Decl. p. 4, ¶
108.) That testimony is also consistent with the disclosure in the prior art of
record as to the known validity periods of broadcast ephemeris data. For
example, Zhao-1 describes that ephemeris data which is broadcast or
transmitted to a given receiver may be “valid for 2-4 [hours] or more[.]”
(Zhao-1 p. 61, col. 1, ll. 16-18) (emphasis added). Even if two to four hours
may represent a period of validity that is “conventional” as is urged by Mr.
Stansell (Stansell Decl. p. 4, ¶ 9), the record does not reasonably convey that
a validity period of four hours operates as an absolute delineating time value
which distinguishes “long term satellite tracking data” from tracking data
which is ephemeris data broadcast from a satellite or satellites. “Long term

7 “[I]n certain instances, such as emergency situations, ephemeris data
that is valid for a longer period time than the typical two to four hour range
is provided to the satellites for broadcasting.”

8 “In rare situations ephemeris message broadcast from the satellites
may be valid longer than 4 hours.”
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

8
satellite tracking data” is generally distinguished from any data that is
characterized as broadcast ephemeris data, regardless of whether the
ephemeris data has a duration which is longer than the 2-4 hours that is
conventional. In light of the record before us and in the context of the ‘080
Patent, the position that “greater than four hours” constitutes a fixed time
duration which operates to distinguish between “long term satellite tracking
data” and broadcast ephemeris data is inconsistent with the record and
essentially an arbitrary temporal point of demarcation between those two
sets of data.
Here, we reject the Examiner’s position that “long term satellite
tracking data” is defined in the ‘080 Patent as limited strictly to data having
a period of validity which is greater than about four hours. The content of
the ‘080 Patent makes clear that, rather than requiring a specific numerical
value for a period of validity, “long term satellite tracking data” is
understood as constituting satellite tracking data which is not broadcast
ephemeris data and has extended validity as compared with the ephemeris
data. Although the Examiner characterizes such an interpretation as
“problematic” in allegedly rendering unclear the scope of the claims (Ans.
9:9-15), we do not agree. That the duration of “long term satellite tracking
data” is relative to the duration of the specific ephemeris data that is
broadcast by a given satellite, and is thus not associated with a single
constant value in all circumstances, does not mean that the scope of the
claims is unclear or indeterminable.
We conclude that, even though variable, “long term satellite tracking
data” has a clear and discernable meaning in the context of the ‘080 Patent
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

9
as constituting data that is not merely unprocessed ephemeris data which is
simply transmitted or broadcast from a satellite and includes a period of
validity longer than, or extended as compared with, the ephemeris data. We
turn now to the rejections over the prior art.
The Anticipation Rejection Involving Zhao-1
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 as anticipated by
Zhao-1 is premised on the position that “long term satellite tracking data”
means satellite tracking data that is valid for more than four hours. As
discussed above, we reject that position. Global Locate contends that the
satellite tracking data which is disclosed in Zhao-1, and on which the
Examiner relies in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 22 (Ans. 4:15-17), is broadcast
ephemeris data and does not constitute the required “long term satellite
tracking data,” which is expressly distinguished from broadcast ephemeris
data. In light of the record before us, we do not discern how Zhao-1
reasonably accounts for the necessary “long term satellite tracking data.”
To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every
element in a claim must be found in a single prior art reference. Karsten
Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Zhao-1 discloses that the data relied on by the examiner as forming “long
term satellite tracking data” is merely ephemeris data transmitted to a
receiver. (Zhao-1 p. 61, col. 1, ll. 6-22.) We do not discern how that data
constitutes the “long term satellite tracking data” that is required by claims
1, 2, and 22. For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 22 as anticipated by Zhao-1.
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

10
The Rejection Involving Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C
In alternatively rejecting claims 1, 2, and 22 over Zhao-1 and ICD-
GPS-200C, the Examiner urges that to any extent Zhao-1 does not disclose
“long term satellite tracking data,” the Examiner relies on ICD-GPS-200C as
allegedly involving the use of such data in conjunction with position
determinations made via GPS satellites. (Ans. 5:1-7) According to the
Examiner, the satellite tracking data disclosed in ICD-GPS-200C is longer
than four hours and thus forms the “long term satellite tracking data” that is
required by claims 1, 2, and 22. (Id. at 5:7-10.) The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious based on the teachings of ICD-GPS-200C to
incorporate the use of satellite tracking data that is longer than four hours
into the operation of Zhao-1. (Id. at 5:11-15.)
Global Locate contends that the satellite tracking data disclosed in
ICD-GPS-200C, while disclosed as being valid longer than 4 hours,
constitutes merely ephemeris data that is broadcast from satellites, i.e.,
“broadcast ephemeris data,” which is a type of data that is distinguished in
the ‘080 Patent from the “long term satellite tracking data” set forth in
claims 1, 2, and 22. (App. Br. 13:18-16:12.) Global Locate thus submits
that the teachings of Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C do not render those claims
obvious.
The Examiner does not appear to dispute Global Locate’s contention
that the satellite tracking data disclosed in ICD-GPS-200C is broadcast
ephemeris data. Rather, the Examiner’s rejection is again premised on the
understanding that satellite tracking data is “long term satellite tracking
data,” even when it is tracking data which is broadcast from a satellite,
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

11
provided that the data is valid for more than four hours. (Ans. 5:1-10;
10:23-25.) As discussed supra, we do not view the Examiner’s proffered
meaning of “long term satellite tracking data,” as consistent with the ‘080
Patent or the record as a whole. It is not apparent, and the Examiner does
not meaningfully explain, how or where ICD-GPS-200C discloses satellite
tracking data that not only has an extended validity duration but is also itself
not merely the ephemeris data broadcast from a satellite.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 as unpatentable over Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-
200C.
The Anticipation Rejection Involving Zhao-2
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 based on
Zhao-2 is also premised on the position that satellite tracking data is “long
term satellite tracking data” simply if it is valid for a period longer than four
hours. (Ans. 6:3-10.) For the reasons noted above, we are not in agreement
with that position. However, although the Examiner has ascribed an
incorrect meaning to the term “long term satellite tracking data” in the
context of the ‘080 Patent, we observe that the content of Zhao-2’s
disclosure warrants further analysis in connection with that term.
Zhao-2 discloses a GPS based system for determining the position of
a receiver using signal transmissions from GPS satellites. (Zhao-2
Abstract.) In describing how “ephemeris” data is involved in the position
determination, Zhao-2 explains that the ephemeris data which may be valid
for two to four hours “can be extended to cover the entire visible period of
the GPS satellite (i.e., up to 12 hours).” (Id. at p. 113, col. 2, ll. 27-34.)
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

12
Zhao-2 further describes that each of ephemeris data and extension or
“correction” components, termed “pseudo-range correction (PRC) and
range-rate correction (RRC) related fields,” are transmitted to a receiver,
where the ephemeris data is then extended using those correction
components so as to be accurate or valid for an increased amount of time as
compared with the unmodified ephemeris data. (Id. at p. 113, col. 2, l. 35
through p. 114, col. 1, l. 16.)
Although Global Locate urges that Zhao-2 does not disclose the use of
“long term satellite tracking data” (e.g., App. Br. 20:17-23), we observe that
in Zhao-2, ephemeris data is received from a location other than the satellite,
and its validity is ultimately extended. As such, the data that results from
Zhao-2's processing reasonably constitutes the “long term satellite tracking
data” set forth in the claims. Global Locate, however, also takes position
that even if the extended ephemeris data of Zhao-2 does account for the
tracking data required by the claims, that the disclosed extended ephemeris
data of Zhao-2 is not itself received at the receiver. (Id. at 19:7-19.) Instead,
Global Locate contends that the ephemeris data and the correction
components are distinct from one another and separately conveyed to the
receiver before being used to generate the extended ephemeris data at the
receiver. (Id.) Thus, Global Locate contends that lacking from Zhao-2 is
any operation of “receiving long term satellite tracking data from a server”
as set forth in the claims. (Id.)
The Examiner has not addressed Global Locate’s above-noted
contention in connection with the “receiving” requirement of the claims.
We agree that the ephemeris data and the correction components disclosed in
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

13
Zhao-2 are separate data elements that must be combined in order to
generate the extended ephemeris data. It is not apparent from Zhao-2’s
disclosure that the extended ephemeris data is generated at a location
external to, or remote from, a receiver, i.e.., a server, and then transmitted to
the receiver so as to be “receiv[ed]” by the receiver. Thus, on this record,
we do not discern how or where Zhao-2 discloses the act of “receiving long
term satellite tracking data from a server” or a component that is configured
for accomplishing that act.
Because the above-quoted feature is a requirement of claims 1, 2, and
22, and because it is not apparent that Zhao-2 discloses that feature, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 as anticipated by Zhao-2.
The Rejection Involving Ramesh and ICD-GPS-200C
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 based on the
teachings of Ramesh and ICD-GPS-200C is similar in nature to the rejection
that was advanced based on Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C. In particular, the
Examiner contends that Ramesh fails to teach “long term satellite tracking
data” because it does not disclose the use of satellite tracking data with a
period of validity lasting longer than four hours. To make up for that
deficiency, the Examiner relies on the teachings of ICD-GPS-200C as
disclosing the use of tracking data valid for more than four hours. The
Examiner concludes that based on the teachings of Ramesh and ICD-GPS-
200C, claims 1, 2, and 22 would have been obvious. (Ans. 6-7.)
Global Locate’s arguments in connection with the rejection over
Ramesh and ICD-GPS-200C are the same as those advanced with respect to
the rejection over Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C. (App. Br. 24.) Namely,
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

14
Global Locate contends that the Examiner has misconstrued the term “long
term satellite tracking data” and that the teachings of Ramesh and ICD-GPS-
200C do not account for such data, as distinguished from broadcast
ephemeris data.
For essentially the same reasons as those set forth in conjunction with
the rejections involving Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C, we do not sustain the
rejections of claims 1, 2, and 22 as unpatentable over Ramesh and ICD-
GPS-200C.
D. CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner did not correctly find that Zhao-1 discloses the
use of “long term satellite tracking data” as that term is defined in the ‘080
Patent.
2. The Examiner did not correctly determine that the teachings of
Zhao-1 or Ramesh, each taken with ICD-GPS-200C, account for “long term
satellite tracking data.”
3. The Examiner did not correctly determine that Zhao-2 accounts
for the claimed feature of “receiving long term satellite tracking data from a
server.”
E. ORDER
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Zhao-1 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhao-1 and ICD-GPS-200C is reversed.
Appeal 2012-002654
Reexamination Control 95/001,372
Patent 7,158,080 B2

15
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Zhao-2 is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ramesh and ICD-GPS-200C is reversed.

REVERSED

PATENT OWNER:
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN, & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
PATENT GROUP 2N
JONES DAY NORTH POINT
901 LAKESIDE AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OH 44114