Ex Parte Spirito et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2013

11030905 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MAURIZIO A. SPIRITO and EERO SILLASTO
____________________

Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MATTHEW
CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-21, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method and apparatus for locating a mobile
terminal in a communications network using multiple sources of
information. Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced:
1. A method, comprising:
supporting a plurality of cells with the first site;
receiving first measurement data relating to at least one
radio link between a mobile station and a first cell at the first
site;
receiving second measurement data relating to at least
one radio link between the mobile station and a second cell at
the first site;
using said first and second measurement data in a
location calculation method with radio network data to provide
a first preliminary location estimate, wherein providing the first
preliminary location estimate comprises
generating a single first distance estimate using the
first measurement data,
generating a single second distance estimate using
the second measurement data, and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jul. 1, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 8, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 16, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Dec. 1, 2009).
Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

3
combining probability density functions of the
mobile station distance from each of said first and second
cells, wherein the probability density functions are based
on the first and second measurement data;
receiving further measurement data relating to at least
one radio link between the mobile station and a second site;
using the further measurement data in a second location
calculation method with the radio network data to provide a
second preliminary location estimate; and
determining a location estimate as a weighted mass
center of the first and second preliminary location estimates.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Reudink US 6,195,556 Feb. 27, 2001
Riley US 2004/0203880 A1 Oct. 14, 2004

REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Riley and Reudink.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-
12, and 14-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Riley and
Reudink turns on whether the combination of Riley and Reudink teaches or
suggests “determining a location estimate … [based on] the first and second
preliminary location estimates” and whether a person with ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to incorporate the features of Reudink
into Riley.
Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

4

ANALYSIS
The Appellants contend that the combination of Riley and Reudink
fails to “give rise to a single preliminary location estimate from multiple
sites being combined to form the final location estimate,” as per claim 1.
App. Br. 13-17 and Reply Br. 3-8. We disagree with the Appellants.
Claim 1 requires “determining a location estimate … [based on] the
first and second preliminary location estimates.” The first preliminary
location estimate is based on measurement data relating a mobile station and
a first and second cell. As found by the Examiner, Reudink describes a
system where a single base transceiver station (BTS) determines an accurate
position of a mobile unit based on measurement data, where the
measurement data is either signal strengths of multiple beams or time
difference of arrival (TDA) of a signal from multiple beams. Ans. 10 (citing
Reudink Fig. 2 and 7:43-68) and Reudink 8:1-19. As such, Reudink
describes that a first preliminary location estimate is determined based on
measurement data between a mobile unit and multiple cells, i.e. signals or
beams, from a single BTS.
Claim 1 additionally requires that the second preliminary location
estimate is based on measurement data relating the mobile station and a
second site. As found by the Examiner, Riley describes a system where the
position information of a wireless terminal is determined based on the
expected areas of two measured BTS combined in to a single expected area.
Ans. 9 (citing Riley ¶ 0071). That is, measurement data relating a mobile
station and a second site is used in combination with measurement data
relating the mobile station and a first site to provide positional data of the
Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

5
mobile station. As such, Riley describes determining a second preliminary
location estimate and further describes determining a single preliminary
location estimate based on a first preliminary location estimate and a second
preliminary location estimate. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Riley and Reudink teaches or suggests these
limitations of claim 1.
The Appellants further contend that a person with ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to incorporate the features of Reudink
into Riley because Reudink explicitly teaches away from such a
combination. App. Br. 16 and Reply Br. 4-5. We disagree with the
Appellants. First, we find that the Examiner has sufficiently responded to
the Appellants’ contention that a person with ordinary skill in the art would
not have been motivated to combine Reudink and Riley. Ans. 10-11. We
agree with the Examiner’s analysis and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions as our own.
We are also unpersuaded by the Appellants’ contention that Reudink
teaches away because Reudink’s system is not appropriate for omni- or
three-sectored systems. App. Br. 16 (citing Reudink 8:31-37). “A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d
1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
A reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference
for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily
skilled artisan, and the reference does not discredit or discourage
Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

6
investigation into the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
Reudink describes that “…using a location map as described above is
not feasible in a typical omni or three sector system.” Reudink 8:31-37.
However, the location map is an optional embodiment of Reudink. Reudink
8:20-23. As such, the Appellants contention is based on nothing more than a
general preference described by Reudink. The Appellants have not further
provided any evidence or rationale to illustrate how this description in
Reudink discourages or discredits the use of multiple sites.
Furthermore, Reudink expresses the use of multiple beams using a
multibeam antenna system, that also utlilizes multiple BTS in order to
provide a precision position of a terminal. Reudink 8:37-42, 9:4-9, and Fig.
1. That is, Reudink expressly describes a system that that includes multiple
beams, multiple BTS, and multiple locations. As such, we do not agree that
Reudink teaches away from multiple sectors systems or multiple sites.
Absent any further evidence or rationale to illustrate that Reudink
teaches away from the use of multiple locations, we are not persuaded that
Reudink teaches away from the combination of Riley and Reudink.
The Appellants reiterate these same arguments in support of claims 2-
7, 10-12, and 14-21. We are not persuaded by these arguments in support of
claims 2-7, 10-12, and 14-21 for the same reasons discussed in the analysis
of claim 1 supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-21.

Appeal 2011-002152
Application 11/030,905

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Riley and Reudink.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Riley and Reudink is sustained.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc