Ex Parte Edge

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2019

14796033 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/796,033 07/10/2015
15093 7590 02/26/2019
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen W. Edge
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.
070985Dl (1059689) 8347
EXAMINER
REAGAN, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN W. EDGE
Appeal 2017-011236
Application 14/796,033
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER S. BISK, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Incorporated.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011236
Application 14/796,033
BACKGROUND2
The claims are directed to network independent location services.
Title. The Specification, for example, describes a process for supporting
delivery of terrestrial assistance data, including the location of base stations
for "a geographic area larger than the current coverage area of the terminal,"
to a cellular telephone. Spec. ,r,r 84, 112, Fig. 17. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of supporting location services for a terminal by a
location server, the method comprising:
receiving measured data for the terminal at a
communications unit of the location server;
determining, by the location server and based on the
measured data, a geographic area that is larger than a current
coverage area of the terminal; and
providing, to the terminal, terrestrial assistance data for the
determined geographic area.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over US 7,586,438 Bl, issued September 8, 2009
("Lawrence") in view of US 2004/0181326 Al, published September 16,
2004 ("Adams").
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that neither Lawrence nor Adams discloses
"determining, by the location server and based on the measured data, a
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed July
10, 2015 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed July 11, 2016 ("Final Act."),
the Appeal Brief filed January 23, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and the Examiner's
Answer mailed May 18, 2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal 2017-011236
Application 14/796,033
geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area of the terminal"
("the determining limitation"). Appeal Br. 18-22. In particular, Appellant
argues that Adams discloses a service location receiving data from a
vehicular management system when that system is within a fixed wireless
network coverage area, but "Adam's [sic] service location does not ...
determine a coverage area, much less determine[], based on received
measured data from the vehicular management system ( or from any other
device), a geographic area larger than a current coverage area of the
terminal." Appeal Br. 21.
The Examiner responds that Adams also discloses "an outside
coverage area, as well as a fixed wireless network coverage area using a
GPS system." Ans. 3 ( citing Adams ,r 28). The Examiner adds that
Lawrence discloses "a centralized processing facility," "satellites
transmitting to Earth-bound reference stations and a control facility," and
"position measuring." Id. (citing Lawrence Figs. 1, 4, 13:17-32).
We find the Examiner has not adequately explained ( and it is unclear
from in the record) how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest
determining a geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area
of the terminal. We see nothing in the cited portions of Adams or Lawrence
that teach or suggest determining a larger geographic area. The Examiner
does not explain, explicitly, what portion of Adams or Lawrence teaches or
suggests this calculation. See Final Act. 7-9. In addition, The Examiner's
Answer does not appear to address all the arguments presented by Appellant.
See Ans. 3. Indeed, the Answer makes no mention of any calculation in the
two references or how such calculation would be obvious in view of Adams
and Lawrence. Id. Moreover, although the Examiner points to Lawrence as
3
Appeal 2017-011236
Application 14/796,033
"disclos[ing] position measuring," (Ans. 3), nothing in the portion of
Lawrence cited by the Examiner describes computing a "geographic area
that is larger than a current coverage area." See Lawrence 13: 17-32.
Therefore, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim
1, and erred in concluding claim 1 is obvious. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, or
independent claim 7, which recites the disputed limitation in commensurate
form. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-10,
which depend from claims 1 and 7.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lawrence and Adams.
REVERSED
4