QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

15370977 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2020)

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.
15/370,977 12/06/2016 Ravi Gidvani 62734/1282001US 4122
101972 7590 09/02/2020
HUNTER CLARK PLLC
Hunter Clark/Qualcomm
7 South Pond Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
EXAMINER
HANNAN, B M M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3664
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
hcdocketing@hunter-clark.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAVI GIDVANI, SUDHEER KUMAR SURYADEVARA, and
CARLOS HORACIO ALDANA
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Qualcomm, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a ranging protocol for wireless transceivers.
“The application discloses systems, methods, apparatus, and computer-
readable medium for exchanging positioning messages between a
responding station and an initiating station in a dense operating environment,
including exclusively occupying a wireless communication medium by
using short interframe space (SIFS) bursting techniques.” Appeal Br. 3.
According to Appellant, “the responding station may immediately transmit
subsequent Fine Timing Measurement (FTM) messages upon receiving an
acknowledgement message from the initiating station acknowledging receipt
of a previous FTM message.” Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter.
1. A method, at a first wireless station (STA), comprising:
transmitting a first fine timing measurement (FTM)
message in a burst of FTM messages to a second STA;
receiving an acknowledgement message transmitted from
the second STA in response to receipt of the FTM message at the
second STA; and
transmitting a second FTM message in the burst of FTM
messages immediately after Short Interframe Space (SIFS)
duration following receipt of the acknowledgement message.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

3
Name Reference Date
Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2015/0094103 A1 Apr. 2, 2015
Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 9,237,546 B1 Jan. 12, 2016
Segev US 2016/0345277 A1 Nov. 24, 2016

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–13, and 16–18 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Segev.
II. Claims 1–3, 6–8, 11–13, and 16–18 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Segev and Zhang.
III. Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Segev, Zhang, and Wang.

OPINION
Rejection I–Segev
Claims 1–3
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 54 and 58 and Figures 5 and 6 of
Segev disclose most of the limitations recited in claim 1, but do not disclose
that the transmission of the second FTM message occurs immediately after a
Short Interframe Space (SIFS) duration that follows the receipt of the
acknowledgement message. Final Act. 7–8. In other words, the Examiner
finds that the specific timing of the final step in claim 1 is not explicitly
disclosed in this portion of Segev.
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

4
To address this deficiency, the Examiner finds Figure 4 and paragraph
47 of Segev disclose a process, 2 “which is [the] same as the claimed features
‘transmitting FTM message immediately after Short Interface Space (SIFS)
duration following receipt of the acknowledgement message.’” Id. at 8–9
(emphasis omitted). The Examiner reasons it would have been obvious to
implement this timing in the process disclosed in Figures 5 and 6 of Segev
“[in] order to determin[e] one-way or round trip measurement times between
the STA and other BSS or IBSS members.” Id.
Appellant argues that, where Segev discloses sending a signal after a
SIFS period, it is after receipt of an FTM message and before transmission
of an acknowledgement message. Appeal Br. 13. In other words, according
to Appellant, Segev uses the SIFS time period at a different point in the
sequence of signals than the sequence recited in claim 1. Further, Appellant,
argues, Segev teaches away from transmitting a second FTM message
immediately after a SIFS duration that follows the receipt of the
acknowledgement message because Segev intentionally uses a Distributed
Coordinated Function Inter Frame Space (DIFS) period at this point in the
process, and the use of the DIFS time period serves a required function in
Segev’s process. Id. at 13–14. Thus, according to Appellant, “Segev
provides no motivation to transmit a second FTM message in the burst of
FTM messages immediately after Short Interframe Space (SIFS) duration
following receipt of the acknowledgement message, as recited in claim 1.”
Id. at 14.

2 The Examiner refers to this disclosure in Segev as a different embodiment
from the disclosure in Figures 5 and 6. Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

5
In response, the Examiner modifies the finding that Segev discloses
transmitting an FTM message immediately after a SIFS duration following
receipt of the acknowledgement message (see Final Act. 8–9), and, instead,
finds Segev merely teaches the use of a SIFS time period between a response
message and an acknowledgement message. Ans. 5–6 (citing Segev Fig. 4).
In other words, the Examiner no longer finds that Segev’s SIFS time period
occurs after receipt of the acknowledgement message. See id. Now, the
Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to use a SIFS time period
after receipt of an acknowledgement message in the sequence depicted in
Figure 5 of Segev “in order to more accurately determine one-way or round
trip measurement times between STA and other BSS or IBSS members.” Id.
at 6; see also id. at 11.
In reply, Appellant argues “the Examiner provides no basis for the
proxy motivation that utilizing the SIFS value instead of the DIFS value
would allow one ‘to more accurately determine one-way or round trip
measurement times’ recited on page 11 of the Examiner’s Answer.” Reply
Br. 6.
First, a preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner’s initial finding that Segev discloses transmitting a second FTM
message immediately after a SIFS duration following the receipt of the
acknowledgement message as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 8–9; Segev
¶ 47, Fig. 4. Rather, as Appellant points out (Appeal Br. 14), the time period
following the Acknowledgement is time period G3, which corresponds to a
DIFS, not a SIFS. See Segev, Fig. 4. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 as set
forth on pages 7–9 of the Final Office Action is not based on adequate
underpinnings.
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

6
Next, with respect to the Examiner’s proposed modification based on
Segev’s disclosure of a SIFS time period between a response message and an
acknowledgement message, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner does
not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that the proposed modification
would allow Segev’s system to “more accurately determine one-way or
round trip measurement times between STA and other BSS or IBSS
members.” Ans. 5–6, 8, 11. Specifically, the Examiner does not explain
why the use of one defined time period (a SIFS) rather than another defined
time period (a DIFS) would improve determination of measurement times
between STA and BSS or other IBSS members. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Segev.
Claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16–18
Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite substantially similar
limitations to those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 23,
25–26 (Claims App.). Consequently, for the same reasons discussed above,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 16, and associated
dependent claims 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, and 18, as unpatentable over Segev.
Rejection II–Segev and Zhang
Claims 1–3
In rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Segev and Zhang, the
Examiner makes the same findings of fact with respect to Figure 5 of Segev
as those discussed in Rejection I. See Final Act. 20–21. The Examiner
relies on Zhang to teach transmitting an FTM message immediately after an
SIFS time period following receipt of an acknowledgement message. Id. at
21 (citing Zhang 3:3–7, 6:9–13, 20:45–48). The Examiner reasons that it
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

7
would have been obvious “to have modified the teaching of Segev with the
teaching of Zhang to receive an immediate acknowledgement frame within a
short interframe space (SIFS) following the first frame in order to accurately
measure RTT (or ToF).” Id.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that Zhang appears to implement a
SIFS time period before an acknowledgement rather than after. See Appeal
Br. 15–17; Zhang 3:3–7, 6:9–13, 20:45–48. For example, Zhang states,
“[t]he frame M requires an immediate response frame or an immediate
acknowledgment frame, ACK(M), within a short interframe space (SIFS)
immediately following the frame M.” Zhang 20:45–48. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s determination that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been
obvious is based on an unsupported finding of fact. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 1, or claims 2 and 3 depending therefrom, as
unpatentable over Segev and Zhang.
Claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16–18
As claims 6, 11, and 16 recite substantially similar limitations to those
discussed above regarding claim 1, for the same reasons, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 6, 11, and 16, and associated dependent claims 7, 8,
12, 13, 17, and 18, as unpatentable over Segev and Zhang.
Rejection III–Segev, Zhang, and Wang
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20
Claims 4, 5, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 each depend from one of
independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). The
Examiner does not rely on the teachings of Wang in any manner that would
remedy the deficiencies discussed above regarding Rejection II. See Final
Appeal 2020-000757
Application 15/370,977

8
Act. 32–38. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 9,
10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Segev, Zhang, and Wang.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6–8,
11–13, 16–
18
103 Segev 1–3, 6–8,
11–13, 16–
18
1–3, 6–8,
11–13, 16–
18
103 Segev, Zhang 1–3, 6–8,
11–13, 16–
18
4, 5, 9, 10,
14, 15, 19,
20
103 Segev, Zhang, Wang 4, 5, 9, 10,
14, 15, 19,
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED