2019006488 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)

Fangsong WANG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 2021

2019006488 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 15/679,101 08/16/2017 Fangsong WANG 109-00001-000-US 9765 136456 7590 05/13/2021 Rimon Law - DAVID GENERAL 2445 Faber Pl. Suite 250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 EXAMINER GHULAMALI, QUTBUDDIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2632 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2021 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): Docketing.Rimonlaw@Clarivate.com SVDocketing@Rimonlaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FANGSONG WANG, YINQING ZHAO, and HAIGANG FENG Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject Claims 1–22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 15, 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real parties in interest are the named inventors. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 29, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed November 8, 2018 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 15, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed August 16, 2017 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to a wireless electronic toll-collection method. See Abstract. CLAIMS Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A system to support electronic toll collection (ETC) via mobile communication devices, comprising: a plurality of vehicle identity collection modules, each at a toll collection location and configured to broadcast wireless communication signals to cover a mobile communication device associated with a vehicle passing by the toll collection location over a wireless communication network, wherein strength of the wireless communication signals is maximized so that mobile communication device switches and connects with the vehicle identity collection module during a wireless cell re-selection process; establish a mobile communication channel with the mobile communication device following a wireless network communication protocol; retrieve identification information of one or more of the vehicle, the driver, and the mobile communication device via the mobile communication channel; an electronic toll collection engine running on a host, which in operation, is configured to determine current toll collecting location of the vehicle based on the identification information of the vehicle, driver, and/or the mobile communication device; generate actual moving path of the vehicle from its initial toll collecting location where the vehicle is first connected to a vehicle identity collection module to its current toll Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 3 collecting location where the vehicle is last connected to a vehicle identity collection module; calculate a toll amount owed by the driver of the vehicle based on the actual path from the initial toll collecting location to the current toll collecting location as well toll collection rules. REFERENCES Name3 Reference Date Yohalashet US 2016/0171787 A1 June 16, 2016 Modiano US 8,456,274 B2 June 4, 2013 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1–20, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yohalashet. Final Act. 7–11. 2. Claims 21 and 22, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as obvious over Yohalashet and Modiano. Final Act. 13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of error. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 4 specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief. CLAIMS 1–20: ANTICIPATION BY YOHALASHET. Appellant argues these claims as a group specifically over the recitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 6. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 102 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein strength of the wireless communication signals is maximized so that mobile communication device switches and connects with the vehicle identity collection module during a wireless cell re-selection process.” Independent Claim 14 contains commensurate limitations. The Examiner finds this limitation is anticipated by Yohalashet’s disclosure of a geofence within which the frequency of GPS position measurements is increased to more accurately trace a vehicle path for communications. Final Act. 7–8. Appellant contends the reference “geofence, and related frequency of GPS position measurements, does not maximize the strength of any communication signals but rather increases the frequency of GPS position measurements.” Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner finds “there is no quantitative definition of how the wireless communication signal strength is maximized.” Ans. 4 (citing Yohalashet, ¶ 63). Thus, the Examiner concludes the “broadest reasonable interpretation of strength of ‘the wireless communication signals is maximized’ is met when that mobile communication device switches and Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 5 connects with the vehicle identity collection module during a wireless cell re-selection process.” Id. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim construction. Although the scope of the claim term “maximized” may not be clear,5 the remainder of this claim limitation requires the strength, i.e., amplitude, of the signal to be such that the mobile device switches and connects with the vehicle identity collection module. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner’s construction of the claim limitation, which reads-out these requirements, is not reasonable. Yohalashet relates to a frequency of measurement, but is silent as to signal strength. Yohalashet discloses: “toll collection server 110 can trace the path of mobile computing device 140 and/or vehicle 150 within geofence 180 more accurately by increasing the frequency of GPS position measurements.” Yohalashet, ¶ 74. We find no evidence that the number of GPS position measurements per unit time, bears any relation to the amplitude, i.e., “strength,” of a broadcast signal. Independent Claims 1 and 14 are, therefore, not anticipated in light of the cited reference. Dependent claims 2–13 and 15–22 inherit the patentability of independent claims 1 and 14. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. 5 The claim phrase “strength . . . is maximized” may be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) if a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand its scope. See Ans. 4 (finding that “maximiz[ing]” the signal lacks “quantitative definition”); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding term “minimal redundancy” indefinite because term lacked objective boundary); MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I) (providing examination guidance for terms of degree). However, in this Decision, we have not evaluated whether this phrase is indefinite because the Final Action did not reject the claim on this basis. Appeal 2019-006488 Application 15/679,101 6 CLAIMS 21 AND 22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER YOHALASHET AND MODIANO. Appellant contends independent Claim 1 is patentable, as discussed above, and that Modiano fails to cure the deficiencies of Yohalashet. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues dependent Claims 21 and 22 are patentable by virtue of their dependence from Claims 1 and 14. Id. The Examiner does not apply Modiano to teach the limitations disputed in connection with independent Claims 1 and 14, as discussed above. Ans. 5. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 21 and 22. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 102 Yohalashet 1–20 21, 22 103 Yohalashet, Modiano 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1–22 REVERSED