Ex Parte Singhal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

13473493 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/473,493
103550 7590
Tara Chand Sighal
P.O. Box 5075
Torrance, CA 90510
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
05/16/2012 Tara Chand Singhal
07/28/2016
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.
l l 195.251F 6447
EXAMINER
ELHAG, MAGDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2016 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 TARA CHAND SINGHAL
Appeal2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
Technology Center 2600
Before MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of Claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to conveying location of a mobile
device to a wireless network. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 6, 11, 14, and 17 are
independent. Claims 1 and 11, which are illustrative of the invention, read
as follows:
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Appellant Tara Chand Singhal as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
1. A mobile wireless cell phone device, operating as a part
of a wireless communication network, comprising:
a. the mobile wireless cell phone device (device) has a
GPS function that obtains a GPS location data of the device;
b. a registration request signal transmission management
(RRSTM) logic operating in the device creates a registration-
request (R-R) record and embeds the GPS location data of the
device in the record in addition to the international mobility
equipment identifier (IMEI) data of the device in the record;
c. the logic sends the R-R record with the GPS location
data to the wireless network when the GPS location data has
changed from a previous in time location data of the device.
11. A wireless network operating in conjunction with mobile
wireless cell phone devices, comprising:
a. the wireless network has a mobile switching center
(MSC) with a home location record (HLR) database that stores
subscriber identification data of the mobile 15 wireless cell
phone devices that are subscribed to and are operating in the
network;
b. the network receives and processes a registration
request (R-R) record from the devices, the records contains a
GPS location data of the devices and the network stores the
GPS location data of the devices in the HLR database.
App. Br. 26, 28 (emphasis added).
THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 4---6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukazawa (JP 2006211335 A; pub. Aug. 10, 2006) and
2
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
Altman, et al. (US 2008/0133336 Al; pub. June 5, 2008) ("Altman"). Final
Act. 9-14.
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukazawa, Altman, and Ogawa, et al. (US 2002/0071408
Al; pub. June 13, 2002). Final Act. 14--18.
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Fukazawa. Final Act. 18-23.
Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukazawa and Ogawa. Final Act. 23-26.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Any other arguments which Appellant
could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, and 10
Appellant argues the foregoing claims as a group, with claim 1
representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Appellant
contends the Examiner erred in at least three respects in finding the elements
of claim 1 in the combination of Fukazawa and Altman. We address each
argument in tum.
Appellant first argues the Examiner erred in finding Fukazawa teaches
a mobile device "send[ing] ... GPS location data to the" mobile network, as
3
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
recited in claim 1, because the mobile device disclosed in Fukazawa "in
addition to conveying GPS data ... also convey[ s] GPS error of acquisition
times." App. Br. 15 (emphasis added). This argument, however, is
unpersuasive of error. As the Examiner explains, Ans. 7, additional data
conveyed (such as error data) is moot to Fukazawa's teaching of the mobile
device sending GPS location data, as recited in Appellant's claim. The
claim does not preclude other data being sent. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982) ("Many of appellant's arguments fail from the outset
because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.").
Appellant next argues the Examiner erred in finding Fukazawa
teaches transmitting the RR signal only when the physical location of the
mobile device has changed from an immediate previous position, as recited
in the final limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 16. In the Final Office Action,
however, the Examiner cited Altman for the "change in location" limitation.
Final Act. 10; see also Altman Fig. 10, i-f 87. As the Examiner asserts,
Altman "teaches [that] it is determined, by the mobile device, whether the
new fixed location differs from the previous location." Ans. 9 (emphasis
omitted); see also Altman Altman Fig. 10, i-f 87. Moreover, as the Examiner
explains in the Answer, Fukazawa also teaches "the location registration is
performed by the moving terminal whenever the moving terminal (mobile
device) moves only a prescribed distance." Ans. 9 (citing Fukazawa i-f 32).
We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited
references teach "the logic sends the R-R record [with the GPS location
data] to the wireless network when the GPS location data has changed from
a previous in time location data of the device." App. Br. 26 (emphasis
added).
4
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
Finally, Appellant argues, without referencing any specific claim
limitation, that Altman uses a "GPS polling method" requiring interaction
with an Internet server, while claim 1, in contrast, is "directed to the
functions that are resident and operative in the mobile wireless device
itself." App. Br. 18. The language of claim 1, however, does not preclude
polling or other interaction with a server. 2 Moreover, to the extent
Appellant's argument is intended to refer to the claim limitation that "the
logic sends the R-R record with the GPS location data to the wireless
network when the GPS location data has changed," see supra, the Examiner
relies on the combination of Altman with Yukazawa for that limitation.
Final Act. 10. Appellant "cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations
of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 9, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukazawa and Altman.
Claims 2, 3, 7 and 8
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2,
3, 7, and 8 for the same reasons as base claims 1 and 6, discussed above.
App. Br. 19. Because we sustained the rejection of claims 1 and 6, we also
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukazawa, Altman, and Ogawa.
2 Appellant's argument appears to be based on the Specification, rather than
the claim language. Although our "understanding [of] the claim language
may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description," we
may not "import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim."
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
5
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
Claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-20
Appellant argues claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-20 as a group, with
independent claim 11 representative of the group. See 37 CPR
§ 41.37(c)(iv). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Fukazawa
discloses a home location record ("HLR") database that stores subscriber
identification data and stores device GPS location data received by the
network, as recited in claim 11. We disagree.
As the Examiner states, Ans. 11, Fukazawa teaches a "home location
register" (HLR 20) which, like Appellant's home location record database,
receives and stores GPS location information. Fukazawa Figs. 1, 6, i-fi-120,
23, 42. Further, Fukazawa states that its home location register (along with
the "visitor location register" (VLR 30)) "manage[s] the information of the
subscriber who has entered into a contract with the mobile communication
service and the position information of the mobile terminal [] possessed by
the subscriber." Id. at i-f 18 (emphasis added). We, therefore, are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's findings.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, 14, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fukazawa.
Remaining Claims 12 and 15
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 12
and 15 for the same reasons as base claims 11 and 14, discussed above.
App. Br. 25. Because we sustained the rejection of claims 11 and 14, we
also sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fukazawa.
6
Appeal 2015-003186
Application 13/473,493
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7