Ex Parte Kirchner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

12138722 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/138,722 06/13/2008
7055 7590 04/25/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael KIRCHNER
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.
P34593 9987
EXAMINER
GALT, CASSI J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL KIRCHNER, TANJA RANG, and
HANSL.TRAUTENBERG
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
Technology Center 3600
Before: JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LYNNE H. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
6-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an integrated positioning process for global
navigation satellite systems. Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
6. A process for an own global navigation satellite system and
at least one other global navigation satellite system, said process
compnsmg:
receiving at least ranging signals from the at least one other
global navigation satellite system;
processing the received at least ranging signals in a manner
similar to the processing of navigation messages from at least
ranging signals of the own global navigation satellite system to
compute navigation messages for the at least one other global
navigation satellite system for users of the own global navigation
satellite system; and
transmitting the computed navigation messages of the at least
one other global navigation satellite system from satellites of the
own global navigation satellite system.
REJECTIONS
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being
anticipated by Hundley et al. (WO 99/18677; Apr. 15, 1999).
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Trautenberg (US 2004/0248559 Al; Dec. 9, 2004) in view
of Sheynblat (US 5,436,632; July 25, 1995).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Trautenberg in view of Sheynblat and further in view of
Ventura-Traveset et al. ("Signal Processing Aspects of the EGNOS System:
the first European Implementation of GNSS").
2
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
OPINION
Anticipation of claim 6 by Hundley
Despite lengthy and repetitive arguments, the Examiner correctly
identifies the one critical dispositive issue in this appeal: the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "navigation messages." See Ans. 3-18; App. Br.
9--49. Appellants do not point to anything in the Specification or offer any
other evidence or explanation as to how "navigation messages" should
actually be construed. Rather, Appellants' strongest argument is that,
because Hundley refers to "navigation messages" separate and apart from
the transmitted information relied upon by the Examiner, the "integrity,
differential corrections, and residual errors," the transmitted information
cited by the Examiner cannot reasonably be construed as "navigation
messages." Reply. Br. 2-3.
It is true that "[p ]rior art references may be 'indicative of what all
those skilled in the art generally believe a certain term means ... [ and] can
often help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the
art."' In re Cortright, 165 F. 3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(citations
omitted). However, although terms used in the prior art references can help
indicate how claim terms should be construed it is not necessary for the prior
art to use identical language to describe structures or acts disclosed therein
in order to consider claim limitations satisfied by those structures or acts. In
re Neugebauer, 330 F. 2d 353, 356 n. 4 (CCP A 1964) ("In the construction
of words, not the mere words, but the thing and the meaning, are to be
inquired after."); Application of Wolfensperger, 302 F. 2d 950, 956 (CCPA
1962) ("[I]t is unlikely that independent specification writers will use
identical language in describing even identical embodiments of an
invention."). Furthermore, it is the Specification of which the claims in
3
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
question form a part, that the claims must be interpreted in light of and not
that of the prior art. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969); In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Considering the term "navigation messages" in light of Appellants'
Specification and the record evidence before us, first, neither the
Specification nor the claims provide any express definition of the term
"navigation messages" as including any specific dataset. Ans. 7-8, 15-18.
Second, there is no evidence that "navigation messages," as a term of art, for
example, are necessarily limited to transmissions including, only, or at least,
a particular, dataset. Third, even though, "navigation messages," may1 be a
term of art, and construed to mean messages that assist in the interpretation
of ranging signals and positional calculations, which is somewhat narrower
than the Examiner's proposed construction of simply "messages that are
intended for the purpose of navigation" (Ans. 13), the Examiner correctly
looked to Appellants' Specification to point out that the actual information
included in Appellants' transmission appears to be of the same nature as that
relied upon by the Examiner in Hundley. Ans. 13-14 ( citing Specification
paras. 5, 6, and 32). Appellants cite the same paragraphs of their
Specification and, without any supporting analysis, argue that one skilled in
the art would have "readily understood that the processed 'integrity,
differential corrections and residual errors'" of HUNDLEY are
distinguishable from the navigation data/messages disclosed in HUNDLEY
and recited in Appellants' claims." Reply. Br. 3. On the record presently
before us, we see no basis for this distinction.
1 Neither the Examiner nor the Appellants furnish evidence in this appeal
regarding this point.
4
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
It is difficult to know with certainty what must be regarded as the
"navigation message" according to Appellants' claims because, as the
Examiner points out, the cited portions of Appellants' Specification do not
define "navigation messages" or give any indication of what they must or
must not include. Rather, the Specification discusses using parameters of the
navigation messages (paras. 5, 13) or even just parts of it (para. 23) and
these parts or parameters would appear to allow computation and
transmission of essentially the same information as that cited by the
Examiner in Hundley. There is a combined computation and transmission in
Hundley of the integrity/correction/error information with the navigation
message. Hundley 11:4--12. The same is true of Appellants' system. Ans. 14
citing Spec. para. 32. Absent evidence that "navigation messages" are
limited to transmissions including only a particular dataset, Hundley's
"navigation message" would not cease to be a "navigation message" in the
mind of the skilled artisan simply because additional data is added to the
transmission or communication as done in both Appellants' and Hundley' s
systems. Similarly, without any evidence that navigation messages must
include at least some particular dataset, we must conclude that it was
reasonable for the Examiner to regard the collection of transmitted
parameters as the "navigation message." Perhaps, if the Examiner implied
that "navigation messages" are any "messages that are intended for the
purpose of navigation" (Ans. 5) that construction might be overly broad
because, in this art, such messages do appear to at least relate to the use of
the ranging signal and positioning calculations. However, it is not clear that
was the Examiner's intent in making this comment. Defining the exact
outermost boundaries of the broadest reasonable interpretation of what
constitutes a "navigation message," per se, is not dispositive here because, as
5
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
the Examiner correctly points out, and we have discussed above, a
comparison of the data included in the computation and transmission in this
aspect of both Appellants' and Hundley's systems reveals that this data is
ultimately the same. The phrase "navigation message" cannot be
manipulated to create a distinction between the same subject matter.
Appellants further argue that the Specification distinguishes from
WAAS systems like that of Hundley. Reply. Br. 2-3. However, as the
Examiner correctly points out, Appellants' do not apprise us of how this
relates to any distinction according to the language actually recited in the
claims. Ans. 12. According to Appellants' Specification (para. 15), high
bandwidth requirements are a drawback of WAAS systems. This would
imply that Appellants' system somehow transmits less data. However, we
are not apprised of any discussion in Appellants' Specification or elsewhere
as to precisely how this is achieved so that we can determine whether the
claims set forth subject matter making this distinction between the
Appellants' and the prior-art systems, if such a distinction does in fact exist.
Remaining rejections
The arguments pertaining to the anticipation rejection of the
dependent claims (App. Br 18-34) are also ultimately premised on the
alleged lack of "navigation messages" in the prior art. The rejections
predicated on Trautenberg and Sheynblat, with and without Ventura-
Traveset, are essentially cumulative of that based on Hundley. Though
Trautenberg and Shynblat do not contain as much detail as Hundley
regarding the integrity data, the issue raised by Appellants, the
reasonableness of the Examiner's interpretation of communications
containing that information as "navigation messages" (App. Br. 34--49), 1s
6
Appeal2016-008562
Application 12/138,722
also ultimately the same as that discussed supra. We do not find Appellants'
arguments in this regard persuasive for the reasons stated above and for
those articulated in the thorough and comprehensive analysis provided by
the Examiner. See Ans. 3-18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7