Ex Parte Goren et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2012

11346722 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID P. GOREN, DEAN KAWAGUCHI, RAJ BRIDGELALL,
BENJAMIN J. BEKRITSKY, and CHRIS ZEGELIN
____________

Appeal 2010-001029
Application 11/346,722
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, JOHN C. KERINS, and GAY ANN SPAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David P. Goren et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 of the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Belcher (US 5,995,046,
iss. Nov. 30, 1999) and Li (Xinrong Li et al., Comparison of Indoor
Appeal 2010-001029
Application 11/346,722

2
Geolocation Methods in DSSS and OFDM Wireless LAN Systems, IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conference 3015-3020 (2000)). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to identifying asset location in
wireless or partially wireless communication networks using the time-of-
arrival at a receiver of a communication sequence or sequences broadcast by
a movable transmitter. Spec. 1-2, para. [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for identifying a location of an asset in a
communication network, said network having at least a first
receiver device and a second receiver device, each receiver
device having a known position, said method comprising:
receiving a data signal including an 802.11
communication sequence at each receiver transmitted by said
asset;
generating a correlation signal from a correlation
function, the correlation function measuring a correlation
between the data signal and a reference signal that is selected as
a function of being substantially correlative with said sequence;
detecting a peak value in the correlation signal from the
data signal, the peak value is a maximum value when the
reference signal most strongly correlates to the data signal;
determining a first time-of-arrival of said 802.11
communication sequence transmitted by said asset based on the
detected peak value in the correlation signal, said first time-of-
arrival corresponding to arrival of said sequence at said first
receiver device;
determining a second time-of-arrival of said 802.11
communication sequence, said second time-of-arrival
Appeal 2010-001029
Application 11/346,722

3
corresponding to arrival of said sequence at said second
receiver device; and
calculating a first time-difference-of-arrival using said
first and second times-of-arrival;
determining said asset’s location based on the calculated
first time-difference-of-arrival at said first and second receiver
devices.
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner found that Belcher’s “[f]irst arrival detector unit 11-1
generates a correlation signal using a correlation function measuring a
correlation between the received data signal (baseband I/Q input signal)
having been spread by a PN code and a reference PN spreading code signal
310 associated with the transmitter.” Ans. 4 (citing Belcher, col. 6, l. 61 –
col. 7, l. 25 and figs. 6 and 8). The Examiner further found that Belcher’s
system detects a peak value (one of the outputs 328) corresponding to a
maximum value when the reference signal 310 and the received signal most
strongly correlate. Ans. 4 (citing Belcher, col. 7, ll. 26-41).
Appellants argue claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-27 as a group. Br. 8.
We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-27
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants
argue that Belcher does not disclose “generating a correlation signal from a
correlation function, the correlation function measuring a correlation
between the data signal and a reference signal” and “detecting a peak value
in the correlation signal from the data signal” as in claim 1. Br. 5-8.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether Belcher discloses the
“generating” and “detecting” steps called for in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-001029
Application 11/346,722

4
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings stated in the Answer as to the
disclosure in Belcher of the claimed “generating” and “detecting” steps and
adopt them as our own. Ans. 4, line 4 (starting with “First arrival detector
unit 11-1 …”) through line 28 (ending with “… the incoming signal (7:26-
41).”); Ans. 6, line 9 (starting with “the correlation function is represented in
Figure 8 …”) through line 17 (ending with “… embodiment described by
BELCHER et al.”); and Ans. 7, line 19 (starting with “in BELCHER et al[.]
a peak …”) through Ans. 8, line 3 (ending with “… correlation value.”). In
particular, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitations and the
reading of these limitations on the disclosure of Belcher are reasonable.
Further, for the reasons provided by the Examiner in the Answer (Ans. 6-9),
Appellants failed to convincingly show why the Examiner’s reading of the
claim limitations on the disclosure of Belcher is in error.
CONCLUSION
Belcher discloses the “generating” and “detecting” steps called for in
claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-4, 6-16, 18, and 20-27
is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
nlk