Clark Cohen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2021

2020003837 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 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.
14/632,663 02/26/2015 Clark Emerson Cohen COHE3006/BEU 5833
23364 7590 03/19/2021
BACON & THOMAS, PLLC
625 SLATERS LANE
FOURTH FLOOR
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1176
EXAMINER
PERVIN, NUZHAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3648
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2021 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):
MAIL@BACONTHOMAS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLARK EMERSON COHEN
____________

Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–53.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies PNT Holdings, Inc. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, 27, and 37 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for supporting resilient carrier phase
positioning of user devices connected by respective
communication links to at least one service data processor,
measurements received from Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS) satellites, and measurements received from low
Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, said measurements including
carrier phase pseudoranges, comprising the steps of:
(a) the at least one service data processor accepting said
measurements received from (i) at least one of said GNSS
satellites by at least one LEO satellite, (ii) at least one of said
GNSS satellites and the at least one LEO satellite by at least
one ground reference station, and/or (iii) at least one other LEO
satellite by the at least one LEO satellite via a LEO-to-LEO
crosslink transmission;
(b) the at least one service data processor generating
precise orbit and clock predictions for the at least one LEO
satellite from available said pseudoranges; and
(c) the at least one service data processor disseminating
said predictions over said communications links to the user
devices to enable the user devices to take into account the
precise orbit and clock predictions when computing respective
positions of the user devices upon receiving signals and
measuring additional carrier phase pseudoranges from GNSS
and LEO satellites.

Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

3
EVIDENCE
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Name Reference Date
Webber US 5,594,452 Jan. 14, 1997
Trimble US 5,708,440 Jan. 13, 1998
Loomis US 5,899,957 May 4, 1999
Lemelson US 5,983,161 Nov. 9, 1999
Harrell US 6,329,950 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
Rabinowitz US 6,373,432 B1 Apr. 16, 2002
Cousineau US 6,400,706 B1 June 4, 2002
LaPrade US 2002/0077099 A1 June 20, 2002
Quintana US 6,639,541 B1 Oct. 28, 2003
Valio US 6,658,048 B1 Dec. 2, 2003
de La Chapelle US 2004/0014472 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Beckley US 2007/0155489 A1 July 5, 2007
Hsu US 7,286,082 B2 Oct. 23, 2007
Oren US 2009/0219976 A1 Sept. 3, 2009
Nishida US 2010/0035543 A1 Feb. 11, 2010
Zhang US 2010/0156709 A1 June 24, 2010
Best US 7,761,095 B2 July 20, 2010
Miller US 2011/0238308 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Chen US 2012/0286991 A1 Nov. 15, 2012
Rhoads US 2012/0309414 A1 Dec. 6, 2012
Katz US 2013/0099968 A1 Apr. 25, 2013
Kumamoto US 8,467,754 B2 June 18, 2013
Leclercq US 2013/0187810 A1 July 25, 2013
Enge US 2014/0104102 A1 Apr. 17, 2014
Ling US 8,908,914 B2 Dec. 9, 2014
Wu US 9,218,741 B2 Dec. 22, 2015

Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

4
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 9, 16, 27, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz and Webber. Non-Final Act. 3–8.
II. Claims 2, 10, 28, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Leclercq. Id. at 8–10.
III. Claims 3, 11, 29, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and de La Chapelle. Id. at
10–12.
IV. Claims 4, 12, 30, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Nishida. Id. at 12–13.
V. Claims 5, 13, 31, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Ling. Id. at 13–14.
VI. Claims 6, 14, 17, 18, 32, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, Miller, and Kumamoto.
Id. at 14–19.
VII. Claims 7 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Hsu. Id. at 19–20.
VIII. Claims 8 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Best. Id. at 21–22.
IX. Claims 15 and 43–45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, Loomis, and Wu. Id. at
22–23.
X. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, Loomis, and Valio. Id. at 23–24.
XI. Claims 20 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Quintana. Id. at 24–26.
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

5
XII. Claims 21 and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, Quintana, and Trimble. Id.
at 26–27.
XIII. Claims 22 and 52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, Loomis, Quintana, and
Rhoads. Id. at 27–28.
XIV. Claims 23 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, Quintana, and Lemelson. Id.
at 28–29.
XV. Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, LaPrade, Chen, and Harrell.
Id. at 29–33.
XVI. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, Loomis, Chen, Harrell, and Cousineau. Id. at
33–34.
XVII. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Rabinowitz, Webber, and Enge. Id. at 34–36.
XVIII. Claim 46 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, and Zhang. Id. at 36–37.
XIX. Claim 47 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, Zhang, and Oren. Id. at 37–38.
XX. Claim 48 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, Zhang, Oren, and Katz. Id. at 38–39.
XXI. Claim 49 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Rabinowitz, Webber, Zhang, and Beckley. Id. at 39–40.

Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

6
OPINION
Rejection I — Obviousness Based on Rabinowitz and Webber
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rabinowitz
discloses a satellite navigation method including, in relevant part,
(b) the at least one service data processor generating
precise orbit and clock predictions for the at least one LEO
satellite from available said pseudoranges ([col. 6, lines 28–40:
estimate of position and clock offset is derived [from] satellite
navigational signals]; [col. 6, lines 40–47: the user 4 and
reference 3 receivers track the absolute carrier phase of the
Navstar satellite signals 5a–d together with the absolute carrier
phase of multiple LEO satellite signals 6a,b]; [col. 7, lines 1–4:
measure the code phase delay on the signals 5a–d transmitted
by the GPS satellites, raw pseudorange]; [col. 7, line 38 –
col. 8, line 5: the position sensing for the ephemeris data can be
achieved either by position sensors on the satellites 2a–c, such
as GPS receivers, or by a tracking station 10 processing
Doppler information from ground receivers at surveyed
locations to calculate the LEOS’ 2a–c orbital parameters]),”
[and]
(c) the at least one service data processor disseminating
said predictions over said communications links to the user
devices to take into account the precise orbit and clock
predictions when computing respective positions of the user
devices upon receiving signals and measuring additional
carrier phase pseudoranges from GNSS and LEO satellites
([Fig. 1: Reference 3, user 4, communication link 8, LEO
satellites 2a 2b, 6a, 6b, Navistar satellites 1a 1b 1c 1d]; [col 3,
line[] 30–col 4, line 41: signals from low earth orbit (LEO)
satellites, using signals from at least one LEO satellite, the
other signals may be from other satellites, including high earth
orbit navigational satellites, or from any other space-based or
earth-based sources, combining the navigational data available
from GPS satellites with the non-navigational carrier phase data
available from LEO satellites]; [column 8, lines 7–28: the radio
LRU could be implemented by transmitting a signal 15a,b
directly to the user 4a,b via a reference station transmitter 16, or
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

7
by using an existing LEO satellite data link 15c,d, the central
function of the LRU 8 is to convey carrier phase measurements
made at the reference station 3 to the user 4, in order to achieve
an initial differential position estimate which is accurate to
within meters, the reference 3 would send to the user 4 a set of
corrections for the range measurements to improve the code
phase performance of GPS]; [col 14, lines 40–48: the LEO
clock calibration routine is used to identify frequency offsets of
the LEO satellite oscillators, the algorithm makes use of the
satellite ephemeris information 71b.1, the GPS signal structure
data 71b.2, the LEO signal structure data 71b.3 and possibly the
location of ground uplink transmitters 71b.4 to identify the
frequency offset of the LEO downlink due to the long-term
instability of the satellite oscillator]).”
Non-Final Act. 4–6.
The Examiner states in the Answer that “the reference station 3 acts as
the service data processor and user 4 in Figure 1 (users 4a–4c in Figure 2[)]
acts as the user device.” Ans. 6. The Examiner also states that “the central
function of the [Link from Reference to User] LRU 8 (communication link)
is to convey carrier phase measurements made at the reference station 3
(service data processor) to the user 4 (user device)” and “the reference 3
would send to the user 4 a set of corrections for the range measurements to
improve the code phase performance of GPS.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner further states that “[b]ased on the code phase measurement [where
both reference receiver 3 and user receiver 4 measure the code phase delay
on signals 5a–d transmitted by the GPS satellites], the user 4 and reference 3
correlate their clocks to within 1 micro second of GPS time,” and the
Examiner takes the position that “[t]he clock offset measured from absolute
phase of the LEO satellites is mapped to the clock predictions, which is
conveyed to user device 4 in Figure 1.” Id. at 7 (citing Rabinowitz 7:5–7).
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

8
Appellant asserts that Rabinowitz’s reference receiver 3 does not
constitute a service data processor as recited in claim 1 because reference
receiver 3 does not generate precise clock predictions for LEO satellites and
disseminate the predictions to user receiver 4. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant
asserts that “the role of the reference station is to provide GNSS carrier
phase data that can be compared with corresponding data obtained by [the]
user device. This is not the same as, and does not suggest, providing the
user device with . . . clock predictions for an LEO satellite.” Id. at 13. We
agree with Appellant that a sustainable case of obviousness has not been
established.
Rabinowitz discloses that “user 4 and reference 3 receivers track the
absolute carrier phase of the Navstar [(i.e., GPS)] satellite signals 5a–d
together with the absolute carrier phase of multiple LEO satellite signals
6a,b.” Rabinowitz 6:44–47. Rabinowitz discloses that “reference 3 and user
4 receiver[s] measure the code phase delay on the signals 5a–d transmitted
by the GPS satellites.” Id. at 7:1–3. “Based on the code phase
measurement, the user 4 and reference 3 correlate their clocks to within 1
µsec of GPS time.” Id. at 7:5–7. Even if “reference 3 receivers [and user
receivers 4] track . . . the absolute carrier phase of multiple LEO satellite
signals 6a,b” as identified by the Examiner, it is not clear that clock offset is
“measured from absolute phase of the LEO satellites” as asserted by the
Examiner. Ans. 7 (citing Rabinowitz 6:40–47) (emphasis omitted). Even
assuming, arguendo, that correlating clocks involved reference 3 generating
a clock prediction based on code phase measurements, Rabinowitz discloses
that the code phase measurements are for the GPS satellites, not for the LEO
satellites. Rabinowitz 7:1–7; see also id. at 6:28–31 (disclosing that, “[f]or
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

9
the purposes of this description, we assume that an initial estimate of
position and clock offset is derived [from] satellite navigational signals and
that the navigation satellites employed are the Navstar satellites of the GPS
constellation” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner’s finding that
Rabinowitz’s reference receiver 3 generates a clock prediction for an LEO
satellite and disseminates the LEO satellite clock prediction to user
receiver 4 (Final Act. 4–5) lacks adequate evidentiary support.
We have also considered the Examiner’s reference to “calibrating
LEO oscillator instabilities using navigation satellite information” and
“compensating for oscillator instabilities [in the user and reference receivers]
(clock prediction).” Ans. 7 (citing Rabinowitz 4:42–5:35 and quoting
Rabinowitz 5:28–31) (emphasis omitted). Even assuming arguendo that
such calibration or compensation information represents a precise clock
prediction for an LEO satellite, the Examiner does not provide evidentiary
support that such information is disseminated from reference receiver 3 to
user receiver 4 in Rabinowitz so as to disclose the claimed steps of
generating a precise clock prediction for at least one LEO satellite by a
service data processor and disseminating it to user devices.
With respect to Webber, the Examiner does not appear to rely on
Webber for any teaching regarding the disputed limitation. See Non-Final
Act. 6 (finding that Webber teaches “at least one other LEO satellite by the
at least one LEO satellite via a LEO-to-LEO cross/ink transmission ([Fig. 1:
15 satellite experiencing interference, 20 adjacent satellite]; [column 1, lines
39–50: coherent in phase for a cross-relation]; [column 7, lines 32–37])”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
adequately supported the finding that Rabinowitz discloses a service data
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

10
processor that generates precise clock predictions for the at least one LEO
satellite and disseminates the precise clock predictions over a
communications link to user devices. Consequently, the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness is based on an insufficiently supported finding.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Rabinowitz and Webber. Because the
Examiner relies on the same deficient findings in rejecting independent
claims 9, 27, and 37 (Non-Final Act. 6–8), we also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 9, 27, and 37, and dependent claim 16, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Rabinowitz and Webber.

Rejections II–XXI
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2–8, 10–15, 17–26,
28–36, and 38–53 rely on the same findings that we find deficient for the
reasons discussed above in connection with the rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, 27, and 37. Non-Final Act. 8–40. The Examiner relies on
additional references for evidencing features of the dependent claims, but
does not articulate any findings or reasoning that would cure the
aforementioned deficiency in the rejection based on the combination of
Rabinowitz and Webber. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed
above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–8, 10–15,
17–26, 28–36, and 38–53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

11
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 9, 16, 27,
37
103 Rabinowitz, Webber 1, 9, 16, 27,
37
2, 10, 28, 38 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Leclercq
2, 10, 28, 38
3, 11, 29, 39 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
de La Chapelle
3, 11, 29, 39
4, 12, 30, 40 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Nishida
4, 12, 30, 40
5, 13, 31, 41 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Ling
5, 13, 31, 41
6, 14, 17, 18,
32, 42
103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Miller, Kumamoto
6, 14, 17, 18,
32, 42
7, 35 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Hsu
7, 35
8, 36 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Best
8, 36
15, 43–45 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Loomis, Wu
15, 43–45
19 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Loomis, Valio
19
20, 50 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Quintana
20, 50
21, 51 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Quintana, Trimble
21, 51
22, 52 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Loomis, Quintana,
Rhoads
22, 52
23, 53 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Quintana, Lemelson
23, 53
Appeal 2020-003837
Application 14/632,663

12
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24, 25 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
LaPrade, Chen,
Harrell
24, 25
26 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Loomis, Chen,
Harrell, Cousineau
26
33, 34 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Enge
33, 34
46 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Zhang
46
47 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Zhang, Oren
47
48 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Zhang, Oren, Katz
48
49 103 Rabinowitz, Webber,
Zhang, Beckley
49
Overall
Outcome
1–53

REVERSED