Ex Parte Kirchner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 12, 2014

12138722 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL KIRCHNER, TANJA RANG, and
HANS L. TRAUTENBERG
____________________

Appeal 2012-002616
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
Appeal 2012-002616
Application 12/138,722

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 6-
10. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an integrated positioning solution for global
navigation satellite systems. Claim 6, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
6. A process for an owned global navigation satellite system
and at least one other global navigation satellite system, said
process comprising:
receiving at least ranging signals from the at least one
other global navigation satellite system;
processing navigation messages from the received at least
ranging signals in a manner similar to the processing of
navigation messages from at least ranging signals of the owned
global navigation satellite system; and
transmitting the processed navigation messages of the at
least one other global navigation satellite system from satellites
of the owned global navigation satellite system.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Alves
Clark
van Diggelen
US 5,153,598
US 6,850,187 B1
US 7,095,368 B1
Oct. 6, 1992
Feb. 1, 2005
Aug. 22, 2006
Syrjarinne US 2010/0013705 A1 Jan. 21, 2010

Admitted prior art (hereinafter APA) (Specification para. [0013])
GALILEO Mission High Level Definition (hereinafter GMHLD).
Appeal 2012-002616
Application 12/138,722

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over either van Diggelen or Syrjarinne in view of any one of
Alves, McCasland, Clark, APA or GMHLD. Ans. 5.

OPINION
Appellants separately argue independent claims 6, 8 and 10. App. Br.
10-25. However, Appellants set forth nearly identical arguments with regard
to each of these claims and therefore raise substantially the same issues. Id.
Appellants argue that neither van Diggelen nor Syrjarinne disclose the
processing aspects of the independent claims. App. Br. 11-13. Like
Appellants, van Diggelen and Syrjarinne are directed to using satellite
navigation messages from various (“other”) satellite positioning, or global
navigation satellite, systems (SPS and GNSS, respectively). Van Diggelen,
col. 1, ll. 23-25; Syrjarinne, p. 1, para. [0002]; Spec. 2:28-3:4. We see no
reason why it is unreasonable to interpret the extraction of information from
these satellite navigation messages (i.e., the time reference difference in van
Diggelen (Ans. 6, citing van Diggelen, col. 4, ll. 1-17 and col. 8, ll. 14-29;
Reply Br. 4, citing col. 1, ll. 52-62) and the orbit, time and satellite
identification parameters in Syrjarinne (Ans. 6, citing Syrjarinne, para.
[0097] and Figs. 2-6) ) as the recited “processing” in light of Appellants’
Specification (see Spec. p. 7-8). Contra Reply Br. 4, 7. Neither the claims,
the rest of Appellants’ Specification, nor Appellants’ arguments apprise us
of any special meaning that must be attributed to the term “processing” so as
to require anything different from, or more specific than, the operations
performed by either van Diggelen or Syrjarinne.
Appeal 2012-002616
Application 12/138,722

4
The suggestion of distinct circuitry 105A and 105B in van Diggelen
(Reply Br. 2-3, citing van Diggelen col. 3, l. 65 – col. 4, l. 1) does not mean
processing is not “similar” as required by the claims. First, van Diggelen’s
distinct circuitry 105A, 105B performs “similar” processing of satellite
signals 111A, 111B by solving for the time reference difference in order to
calculate pseudoranges. See Ans. 8, citing van Diggelen, col. 8, ll. 14-29 et
seq. The term “similar” allows for some minor differences in the
processing. Second, the cited portion of van Diggelen expressly discloses an
embodiment using shared circuitry (Van Diggelen, col. 4, ll. 7-9). Even
assuming arguendo that subsequent processing is not “similar,” at least the
“front-end” processing of the signals would be identical, and therefore
“similar.” That is sufficient to meet the language of the claim. The claim is
open-ended and a requirement of “similar” processing does not implicitly or
inherently require the absence of any dissimilar processing at other
subsequent stages. Similarly, in Syrjarinne, prior to steps 230, and 240, for
example (the figures 3 and 4 continuations of the figure 2 flowchart,
respectively), no distinction is made between satellite systems. Ans. 6,
citing Syrjarinne, figs 2-6. Again, even assuming arguendo that processing
after steps 230 and 240 is different enough so as not to be considered
“similar” (Reply Br. 8), it is sufficient to meet the claims that processing that
occurs before those steps is identical and is therefore “similar.”
Appellants also contend that there is no evidence van Diggelen is
compatible with the Examiner’s proposed modification to employ satellite
transmission of the received and processed navigation messages as taught by
any one of Alves, McCasland, Clark, APA or GMHLD. Reply Br. 6, 9-13;
App. Br. 13. The Examiner points out that, although the Examiner initially
Appeal 2012-002616
Application 12/138,722

5
found van Diggelen lacks this feature, van Diggelen does, in fact, expressly
suggest this modification. Ans. 8, citing van Diggelen, col. 8, ll. 22-24. We
agree with the Examiner that this is strong evidence that one skilled in the
art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed
modification, and with the conclusion that it would have been obvious to do
so.
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh