Ex Parte Camp

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2012

11168044 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/168,044 06/28/2005 William O. Camp JR. 9314-115 9160
54414 7590 04/24/2012
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
LIU, HARRY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM O. JR. CAMP
____________________

Appeal 2010-006053
Application 11/168,044
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006053
Application 11/168,044

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1
and 3-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to methods, systems, and devices for
determining the location of a mobile device based on simulcast
communication signals. (Spec. Para. [0001].)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for determining a position of a mobile device, the
method comprising:
receiving a digital television signal at the mobile device
simulcast from a plurality of transmitters;
identifying one of the plurality of transmitters based on
information obtained from the received simulcast digital
television signal, wherein the information comprises
identification information associated with the one of the
plurality of transmitters including a timeslot and/or code
information associated therewith;
receiving an identifiable signal associated with the
identified one of the plurality of transmitters; and
determining a range of the identified one of the plurality
of transmitters from the mobile device based on the received
identifiable signal.
(Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix1 22.)

1 Appeal Brief filed July 24, 2009, hereinafter “App. Br.” and Claims
App’x, respectively.
Appeal 2010-006053
Application 11/168,044

3

THE REJECTIONS
I. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-10, and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spilker Jr. (US
2005/0030229 A1, published February 10, 2005). (Examiner’s
Answer, dated November 12, 2009, “Ans.” 3-6.)

II. The Examiner rejected claims 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Spilker in view of van Rooyen (US
2006/0130101 A1, published June 15, 2006). (Ans. 6-8.)

DISCUSSION
Claim Interpretation
The present appeal turns on the proper interpretation of the instant
claims, and more specifically whether the “digital television signal” and the
“identifiable signal” recited in the independent claims are required to be
different signals.
In our view, one of ordinary skill in the art, in interpreting the claims
in light of the Specification, would have understood that the “digital
television signal” and the “identifiable signal” recited in claim 1 refer to
different signals. Specifically, Appellant’s Specification discloses simulcast
communication signals, which include identification information, such as
distinct code information and/or timeslots of a communications protocol.
(Spec. Para. [0053]-[0054], [0062]-[0065], [0072]-[0074]; Figs. 2, 3, 4A,
4B, 5A, 5B.) This identification information is associated with one or more
transmitters and provides the mobile terminal with information necessary to
identify the identifiable signal. (Id.) The identifiable signal is received after
having been identified with the identification information broadcast with the
simulcast communications signal. (Id.) As such, Appellant’s Specification
Appeal 2010-006053
Application 11/168,044

4
distinguishes between the simulcast communications signal and the
identifiable signal(s). Therefore, we interpret the simulcast communications
signal and the identifiable signal recited in the claims to be two distinct
signals, the identifiable signal being received from the transmitter after being
identified with identification information contained in the simulcast
communications signal.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections
The Examiner’s rejection is premised on the position that Appellant
“does NOT claim [a] separate [identifiable] signal.” (Ans. 9.) Specifically,
the Examiner stated that identifying information obtained from a simulcast
digital television signal does not require a separate signal, but that this
information could be buried inside one signal. (Ans. 9.)
However, in light of the claim interpretation discussed above, we
agree with Appellant that Spilker does not disclose a signal that is simulcast
from multiple transmitters (and includes timeslot and/or code information
that is used to identify a particular transmitter) and a separate identifiable
signal (which is received from the transmitter so identified). (App. Br. 8.)
Rather, Spilker discloses that a transmitter is identified and a pseudorange is
determined based on a single positioning signal. (Para. [0179], [0184]; App.
Br. 10.)
Because all the independent claims on appeal require a separate
simulcast DTV signal and a separate identifiable signal, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims.

Appeal 2010-006053
Application 11/168,044

5

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-10, and 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spilker.

We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Spilker in view of van Rooyen.

REVERSED

cu