Ex Parte Ben Rached et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

10583580 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/583,580 12/08/2008
81310 7590 09/02/2016
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & G (Apple)
P.O. BOX 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nidham Ben Rached
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6888-35300 8878
EXAMINER
BIBBEE, CHA YCE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
ptomhkkg@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIDHAM BEN RACHED,
THIERRY LUCIDARME, and GABRIEL LINDEN
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN F. HORVATH, JOHN R. KENNY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 17-34, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "a method of determining the position in
a heterogeneous radiocommunication system" and "[i]n particular ... to
determining the position of a mobile terminal in a radiocommunication
system comprising two distinct sub-systems." (Spec. 1: 1-3.) Claim 17,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
17. A method of determining a position of a mobile terminal,
compnsmg:
a first base station sending a location request to the mobile
terminal over a wireless communication network according to a
first protocol, wherein the location request is made by a remote
client and the location request specifies that the position of the
mobile terminal be based on measurements made with respect to
information from a second base station that communicates wire-
lessly with the mobile terminal according to a second protocol
different from the first protocol;
in response to the location request, the first base station re-
ceiving from the mobile terminal the measurements made with
respect to the information from the second base station; and
the first base station performing an action to determine the
position of the mobile terminal based on the received measure-
ments.
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 17-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pihl et al. (US 2003/0040323 Al; pub. Feb. 27, 2003) and
Dooley et al. (US 2002/0168989 Al; pub. Nov. 14, 2002).
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections are in error for the following
reasons:
1. With respect to claims 17, 23, 29, 32,
[t]he cited references fail to teach or suggest "a first base station
sending a location request to the mobile terminal over a wireless
communication network according to a first protocol, wherein
the location request is made by a remote client and the location
request specifies that the position of the mobile terminal be based
on measurements made with respect to information from a sec-
ond base station that communicates wirelessly with the mobile
terminal according to a second protocol different from the first
protocol."
(App. Br. 7.)
2. Also with respect to claims 17, 23, 29, 32,
the cited references fail to teach or suggest "in response to the
location request, the first base station receiving from the mobile
terminal the measurements made with respect to the information
from the second base station" and "the first base station perform-
ing an action to determine the position of the mobile terminal
based on the received measurements."
(App. Br. 8.)
3. With respect to claims 18, 19, 24--26, 30, and 33, "[t]he cited
portion of Pihl and Dooley fails to teach or suggest 'wherein performing the
3
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
action comprises sending the received measurements to a position finding
entity for processing the received measurement'." (App. Br. 9.)
4. With respect to claims 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, and 34, "[ t ]he cited
portion of Pihl and Dooley fails to teach or suggest receiving further
measurements from the mobile terminal based on information from the first
protocol and using that further location information to derive the position of
the mobile terminal." (App. Br. 9.)
5. With respect to claim 22, "[t]he cited portion of Pihl and
Dooley fails to teach or suggest 'wherein the first and second protocols are
different generation wireless communication protocols'." (App. Br. 10.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 17, 23, 29, and 32
As to contention 1, Appellants "agree" with the Examiner's "stance
that Pihl teaches a location request and that Dooley teaches using multiple
protocols" but "respectfully submit[] that the combination of these ideas
does not provide a prima facie case of obviousness" because "neither
reference contemplates a request for a communication system of a first
protocol to cause a mobile device to retrieve information of a second
protocol in the manner claimed." (App. Br. 8.) We do not agree.
Pihl teaches the location request and Dooley teaches the use of
multiple protocols and that "[b ]y being able to obtain positioning
information from a second network, such as GSM, a complete location
service can be offered." (Dooley i-f 9; see Final Act. 5.) We agree with the
Examiner that, particularly in light of Dooley's disclosure regarding the
advantage of using multiple networks for positioning information, it would
4
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
have been obvious to combine these references to arrive at the claimed
subject matter.
As to contention 2, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that both Pihl
and Dooley teach that the mobile station can send the measurement
information to the base station for location calculation. (Ans. 9-10 (citing
Dooley ii 34; Pihl ii 34).)
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 17, 23, 29, and 32 are
sustained.
Claims 18, 19, 24-26, 30, and 33
As to contention 3, Appellants argue that "the cited paragraph [Pihl ii
38] merely indicates that the measurement data is used for location
calculation but nowhere contemplates 'sending the received measurements
to a position finding entity for processing the received measurement'."
(App. Br. 9.) The Examiner responds that "Pihl in at least paragraph [0034]
discloses that the mobile station 10 can measure the BCCH frequencies from
more than one operator and report the measurements to the responsible
SMLC for location calculation, thus sending the received measurements to a
position finding entity for processing the received measurement." (Ans. 10.)
Appellants reply that "[a]s already argued, the measurements in Pihl only
relate to a single protocol base station and not the heterogeneous base
stations recited in the claim." (Reply Br. 4.) This argument is unpersuasive
because, as explained above, Dooley teaches a multi-mode wireless terminal
obtaining location information from two networks using different wireless
protocols, and we agree that it would have been obvious to use both sets of
information at the base station to determine the position of the terminal. The
5
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
claims are directed to a heterogeneous system, not "heterogeneous base
stations."
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 18, 19, 24--26, 30, and 33
are sustained.
Claims 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, and 34
As to contention 4, Appellants argue that "Pihl does not relate to
determining the location of a mobile terminal using information from two
different protocols" and "Pihl also does not teach or suggest that a specific
entity performs the determination of the position based on both sets of
location information, much less the entities recited in the claims." (App. Br.
9.) We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons explained above,
namely that Dooley teaches collecting information from two different
protocols and it would have been obvious to use that information to
determine the position of the terminal, and both Pihl and Dooley teach the
location can be calculated at the SMLC.
For these reasons, the rejections of claims 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, and 34
are sustained.
Claim 22
As to contention 5, Appellants argue that "[t]he cited portion of Pihl
and Dooley fails to teach or suggest 'wherein the first and second protocols
are different generation wireless communication protocols'." (App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner responds that "Pihl in paragraph [0040] discloses that the
network could be viewed as a UTRAN network versus a GSM network" and
that in Dooley "at least the abstract discloses a first plurality of base stations
operating in the GSM protocol and a second plurality of base stations
operating in the UMTS protocol." (Ans. 10-11.) Appellants respond that
6
Appeal2015-005928
Application 10/583,580
"Pihl only teaches a single protocol (either UT RAN or GSM), not two
protocols." (Reply Br. 5.) We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive for
the reasons described above and that, given the teachings of the use of
multiple protocols, it would have been obvious to use different protocols of
different generations. The rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 17-34 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7