Ex Parte Eshghi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10199664 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KAVE ESHGHI, HENRI JACQUES SUERMONDT, and
EVAN R. KIRSHENBAUM
____________________

Appeal 2011-0104191
Application 10/199,664
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed July 18, 2002. The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L. P. (App. Br. 2.) In an Opinion (Appeal Number
2009-004760) dated December 9, 2009, available at
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2009004760-
12-09-2009-1(“Opinion”), an earlier panel reversed the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1-23 and 25-39 as being anticipated by Wolfson.

Appeal 2011-010419
Application 10/199,664

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-39. Claim 24 has been canceled. (App. Br.
4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
As shown in Figure 1A, Appellants invented a method and system
wherein two Global Positioning Systems (GPSs) (103, 107) record various
data sets depicting their respective locations over different periods of time.
Subsequently, the recorded trajectory data sets for the two GPS devices are
compared to determine at what instances, if any, the two devices shared a
common geographical location. (Spec. 7, ll. 3-9.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method of finding elements that match across a
plurality of global positioning system (GPS) data, the method
comprising:
gathering the plurality of sets of the GPS data with two
handheld portable electronic devices while users carry the two
handheld portable electronic devices;
partitioning a representation of each element of a
plurality of sets of the GPS data into a series of segments;
repeating a matching process to determine if the users
carrying the two handheld portable electronic devices were
previously at a common geographical location comprising:
exchanging portions of the GPS data between the
two handheld portable electronic devices by disclosing
Appeal 2011-010419
Application 10/199,664

3
one of the segments from each element that is from a
selected one of the sets and that is a potential match;
removing from the potential matches those
elements that do not match the disclosed segment; and
rotating which among the sets is the selected set;
revealing results of the matching process at the two
handheld portable electronic devices.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Lampert 5,953,722 Sep. 14, 1999
Sari 6,791,477 B2 Sep. 14, 2004
Edmark 6,819,267 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
Wolfson 6,895,329 B1 May 17, 2005
Michener 7,028,191 B2 Apr. 11, 2006

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1, 7 through 10, 14, 18 through 21, 25 through 27, 31 through
34, and 37 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of
Wolfson and Sari.
2. Claims 2 through 6, 12, 13, 15 through 17, 23, 28 through 30, and 36
stand rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Wolfson, Sari,
and Michener.
3. Claims 11, 22, and 35 stand rejected as being unpatentable over the
combination of Wolfson, Sari, Michener, and Lampert.
4. Claim 38 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combination
of Wolfson, Sari, and Official Notice.
Appeal 2011-010419
Application 10/199,664

4
5. Claim 39 stands rejected as being unpatentable over the combination
of Wolfson, Sari, and Edmark.

ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 14-16.
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Wolfson and Sari teaches or suggests
gathering GPS data with two handheld portable electronic devices while
they are being carried by users, and repeating a matching process to
determine if the users carrying the devices were previously at a common
geographical location, as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of the cited
references does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized
above. (App. Br. 14-15.) According to Appellants, while Wolfson discloses
a mobile device (e.g., a police cruiser) that transmits its location data to a
database to generate trajectory data that is subsequently used to determine
past, present and future locations of the device, the reference does not teach
two portable devices that can be carried by users exchanging their respective
geographical location data to determine if they were previously at the same
location, as required by the claim. (Id. at 14.) Further, Appellants argue that
Sari’s disclosure of a portable GPS locator that can download waypoints
from another portable GPS locator does not remedy Wolfson’s deficiencies.
Appeal 2011-010419
Application 10/199,664

5
(Id. at 15.) Appellants submit that the proposed combination would, at best,
teach a first device in Wolfson receiving waypoints from a second device,
which would then obtain the trajectory of the first device from the database
to thereby determine whether the expected location of the first device
exceeds a threshold. However, Appellants argue that such determination
would not teach whether the first and second devices were previously at a
common geographical location. (Reply Br. 3.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Sari’s disclosure of two portable
locators being carried by different users, wherein the locators exchange
waypoint location information to thereby determine the direction to and the
distance from the waypoint location would allow users of Wolfson’s system
to determine the location of portable GPS devices. (Ans. 14-15.)
On the record before us, we agree with Appellants for the reasons
asserted in the Briefs. In particular, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s proposition to modify Sari’s portable locators by incorporating
therein the features of Wolfson’s automobile-based GPS (Ans. 15.) would
have not predictably resulted in the disputed claim limitations. As argued by
Appellants, it would have merely resulted in the portable locators
exchanging data to determine the location of a waypoint with respect to their
individual locations. Thus, because the proffered combination of Wolson
and Sari would have not predictably resulted in determining whether two
portable locators were previously at a common geographical location, it does
not teach or suggest the disputed limitations.
Appeal 2011-010419
Application 10/199,664

6
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the rejection of
claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that the combination of Wolfson and Sari renders independent claim 1
unpatentable.
Because claims 2-23 and 25-39 also recite the limitations discussed
above, we find that Appellants have also shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth in our discussion of
independent claim 1.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-23 and 25-39.

REVERSED

llw