Ex Parte Kennedy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11593063 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/593,063 11/06/2006 Joseph P. Kennedy JR. AND02 002 2139
79172 7590 07/15/2014
Duane Morris LLP
505 9th Street, N.W.
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
EXAMINER
HUYNH, NAM TRUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, JR., ROGER K. ALEXANDER,
THOMAS B. GRAVELY, ANDREW BECK, and
KALPATHI ANANTHAKRISHNAN
____________

Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,0631
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DEBORAH KATZ, JOHN G. NEW, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-21. Specifically, claims 1, 3, 8-10,
14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Zadeh (US 6,516,195 B1; issued Feb. 4, 2003); claim 2 stands rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Zadeh and Innes (US
6,061,565; issued May 9, 2000); claims 4, 6, and 11-13 stand rejected under

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Andrew LLC. App.
Br. 1.

Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Zadeh and Havinis (US
6,191,737 B1; issued Feb. 20, 2001); claim 5 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Zadeh, Havinis, and Innes;
and claims 7, 15, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Zadeh and Zappala (US 2002/0127993 A1, published
Sept. 12, 2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for optimizing a wireless
communications network. Appellants teach methods for identifying the
presence of mobile activity in a wireless communications network and
collecting wireless communication measurement data associated with the
mobile activity. After collection, the wireless communications measurement
data is combined with geolocation data to form geocoded data. Finally,
Appellants’ methods include transferring the geocoded data to a processing
system to support optimization of the wireless network. US Application
11/593,063, Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Appellants identify claim 1 as central to this Appeal, noting that the
rejections of all other claims stand or fall with claim 1. App. Br. 5. Claim 1
reads as follows:
1. A method of producing geocoded data for optimization
of a wireless communication network wherein the wireless
communication network is independent of the geolocation
system comprising:
Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

3
identifying the presence of mobile activity in the wireless
communication network;

collecting wireless communication measurement data
associated with the mobile activity, the collecting occurring
without requiring receipt of a location request for a mobile
associated with the mobile activity;

obtaining a geolocation of the mobile associated with the
mobile activity;

combining the mobile’s geolocation with wireless
communications measurement data thereby creating geocoded
data; and,

transferring the geocoded data to internal or external
processing systems that support the implementation of network
optimization for the wireless communication network.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zadeh. App.
Br. 2-4. Specifically, Appellants argue that Zadeh fails to teach the
following two limitations of claim 1: (1) “combining the mobile’s
geolocation with wireless communications measurement data thereby
creating geocoded data,” and (2) “transferring the geocoded data to internal
or external processing systems that support the implementation of network
optimization for the wireless communication network.” Id. We, therefore,
address the question of whether the Examiner erred in finding that Zadeh
anticipates the disputed limitations of claim 1.

Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

4
ANALYSIS
(1) “combining the mobile’s geolocation with wireless
communications measurement data thereby creating geocoded data”
The Examiner finds that Zadeh discloses computer records that
contain the geolocation information associated with certain
telecommunications events, and that those records read on the “combining
the mobile’s geolocation with wireless communications measurement data
thereby creating geocoded data” limitation in claim 1. Answer 16 (citing
col. 7, ll. 20-26; col. 8, ll. 42-59). Subsumed within that finding, the
Examiner finds that the “wireless communication measurement data” claim
element is met by Zadeh’s disclosure of high bit-error-rate events and
similar events. Id.
Appellants argue that Zadeh discloses storing only time-delay
information and position in its records, not the combination of measurement
data and position information as required by claim 1. Reply 2-3. Appellants
argue that the Examiner’s findings would substitute a telecommunications
“event” for the “telecommunications measurement data” claim element, and
that the two are distinct. Reply 2-3.
The record shows, though, that Appellants have acknowledged that
Zadeh’s disclosure of high bit-error-rate events and similar
telecommunications events satisfy the “wireless communication
measurement data” claim element. See App. Br. 2; accord US Application
11/593,063, Jan. 28, 2011 Amendment at 2. Notably, the file history
includes Appellants’ acknowledgement of the Examiner’s position regarding
that claim element as follows:
Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

5
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, the Office
acknowledges that communication measurement data must be
collected without requiring a location request. The Office also
correctly observes that Zadeh monitors bit error rate (or other
pre-request data) prior to triggering a position request. The
Office relies upon this collection of data that in turn is used to
trigger the positioning request as a disclosure for “collecting of
wireless communication measurement data” of Claim 1.
However, while not the focus of the Applicant’s previous
response, the Office’s clarified position of what it considers the
pre-request measurement data[] now leaves the step of
combining the mobile’s geolocation with wireless
communications measurement data thereby creating geocoded
data wanting.

The Office is free to use the BER or other measurement data
that is collected without a location request, but the
measurement data to meet the claim language must also be
combined with the geolocation of the mobile, and that
combination of geolocation and measurement data must be
transferred for processing. It is the latter two limitations that
the Office’s “wireless communication measurement data” does
not meet.

US Application 11/593,063, Jan. 28, 2011 Amendment at 2 (bold and italics
in original, underline added).

The record supports the Examiner’s findings. The record shows that
Appellants recognize Zadeh’s disclosure of high bit-error-rate events as a
type of wireless communications measurement data. See App. Br. 2. We
find that Zadeh further discloses that a record contains a geolocation
associated with a telecommunication event like a high bit-rate-error event.
Because Zadeh teaches records that include geographical information and
information collected with the associated telecommunications event, Zadeh
Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

6
teaches “combining the mobile’s geolocation with wireless communications
measurement data thereby creating geocoded data,” as recited in claim 1.

(2) “transferring the geocoded data to internal or external processing
systems that support the implementation of network optimization for the
wireless communication network”
The Examiner cites Zadeh’s disclosure of a network operation or
optimization team that analyzes recorded data as corresponding to the
limitation of claim 1 reciting “transferring the geocoded data to internal or
external processing systems that support the implementation of network
optimization for the wireless communication network.” Answer 16. The
Examiner finds that an optimization team’s analysis of a record containing
the geocoded data requires transferring the record from a computer
database’s storage to a form accessible to the analysis team. Id.
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies exclusively on the
disclosure of Zadeh reciting “[a]s illustrated at block 116, the network
operation or optimization team analyzes the recording result, which contains
the position for the mobile (i.e., MS) as well” as corresponding to the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 4 (quoting Zadeh, 8, ll. 63-66). Appellants
contend that the steps of combining and transferring as claimed are not
shown in the prior art of Zadeh. App. Br. 8.
We agree with the Examiner. Zadeh discloses:
As also described at block 114, the recording program stores in
the record the position associated with that particular pre-
defined event. The time delay (i.e., delta time) between the
occurrence of the event and calculation of position is also stored
in the record. Following completion of the operation described
Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

7
at block 114, the operations beginning, as indicated at block
108, are repeated. When the subsequent operations are
complete, the operation depicted at block 116 is performed. As
illustrated at block 116, the network operation or optimization
team analyzes the recording result, which contains the position
for the mobile (i.e., MS) as well. The process finally terminates,
as indicated at block 118.

Zadeh, col. 8, ll. 55-67. Zadeh thus teaches that, after the results of
repeated operations are stored in the record, the combined records are
analyzed by the network operation or optimization team analyzes the
recording result. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
results would have to be retrieved from the record to perform the analysis.
See Ans. 16. Accordingly, Zadeh teaches “transferring” the data to the
network operation or optimization team. See In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (teachings of a reference may be taken in combination
with knowledge of the skilled artisan to put the artisan in possession of the
claimed invention within 35 U.S.C. § 102 even though the patent does not
specifically disclose certain features). We consequently affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants state that claims 2-21
“stand or fall” with claim 1 we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of those
claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 14, 16, and17 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Zadeh are affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Zadeh and Innes is affirmed.
Appeal 2012-003232
Application 11/593,063

8
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 6, and 11-13 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Zadeh and Havinis are
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Zadeh, Havinis, and Innes is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 15, and 18-21 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Zadeh and Zappala is
affirmed.
No time period of taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk