Ex Parte Chauncey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 5, 201411512535 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/512,535 08/30/2006 David Chauncey 7897-000006/US 3231 78331 7590 12/08/2014 Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. P.O. Box 828 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303 EXAMINER SCHECHTER, ANDREWM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2857 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/08/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID CHAUNCEY and THOMAS DOHERTY ____________ Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,5351 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 15–19, 21–24, 36, 37, and 40–43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Harris Corporation (Appeal Brief filed March 28, 2012, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 3). Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 2 BACKGROUND The invention relates to a method for estimating a position of a device based on a combination of inertial, ranging, and global positioning information (Specification, hereinafter “Spec.,” ¶ 1). The Specification and Drawings indicate that the invention includes an embodiment in which the positions of field operators, who appear to be firefighters, are estimated (Spec. ¶ 40; Fig. 4). Representative claim 15 is reproduced from page 17 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App’x) with key disputed limitations shown in italicized text, as follows: 15. A method for estimating position of a device, comprising: receiving inertial position information, global positioning information and ranging information with a first handheld position estimation device; receiving inertial position information, global positioning information and ranging information with a second handheld position estimation device; establishing communication between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device; determining a distance between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device derived from a transmission time of a signal transmitted between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device; determining an estimation of a position of the first handheld position estimation device based on a filtered combination of the inertial position information, the global positioning information and the ranging information, including the distance determined by the communication between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device; Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 3 determining a value descriptive of accuracy of the estimation of the position of the first handheld position estimation device; instructing a user of the first handheld position estimation device to deploy a relay node via a display on the first handheld position estimation device when the value descriptive of accuracy passes below a threshold; and receiving global positioning information and ranging information at the first handheld position estimation device from the relay node deployed by the user, wherein the filtered combination on which the estimation of the first handheld position estimation device is based includes the global positioning information and the ranging information received from the relay mode. The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: I. Claims 15–17, 21–24, 37, and 40–432 as unpatentable over Breed,3 Lemelson,4 Riewe,5 and Soliman;6 and II. Claims 18, 19, and 36 as unpatentable over Breed, Lemelson, Riewe, Soliman, Rorabaugh,7 and Mathie.8 2 The Examiner omitted claims 37 and 40–43 in the statement of the rejection, but it appears that the omission was inadvertent because these claims were discussed in the body of the rejection (Examiner’s Answer entered June 14, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” 5, 9–13). 3 United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0198632 A1 published December 26, 2002. 4 United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0022927 A1 published February 21, 2002. 5 United States Patent 6,826,478 B2 issued November 30, 2004. 6 United States Patent 6,166,685 issued December 26, 2000. 7 United States Patent Application Publication 2004/0033808 A1 published February 19, 2004. Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 4 (Ans. 5–35.) DISCUSSION I. Claims 15–17, 21–24, 37, & 40–43 With respect to Rejection I, the Appellants focus their arguments on claim 15 (App. Br. 11–14). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 15, which we select as representative. Claims 16, 17, 21–24, 37, and 40–43 stand or fall with claim 15. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Examiner found that while Breed does not describe the above- identified disputed limitations of claim 15, Lemelson, Riewe, and Soliman teach these missing limitations (Ans. 5–9). The Examiner concluded from these findings that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to combine the references in the manner claimed by the Appellants (id. at 9). The Appellants contend that both Breed and Lemelson relate to collision avoidance systems for vehicles and that neither reference “teaches implementing position determination techniques in a portable handheld device” (App. Br. 11). The Appellants further contend that “neither Riewe nor Soliman teaches or suggests instructing the user to deploy a relay node as recited in [claim 15]” (id. at 12). In particular, the Appellants urge that “there is . . . no teaching or suggestion as to when and/or where to place the relay nodes” and that, because the references relate to vehicular systems, “the proposed modifications would render the prior art references being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose . . . .” (id. at 13). 8 United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0270949 published November 30, 2006. Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 5 The Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive to demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Although the Appellants are correct that Lemelson discloses a vehicular collision avoidance system (Lemelson ¶ 3), the Examiner correctly found that the reference also discloses a method or system for estimating the positions of field operators (e.g., firefighters) equipped with handheld GPS devices (Ans. 26, quoting Lemelson ¶ 177). Specifically, Lemelson’s paragraph 177 teaches (emphases added): For example, in the case of optimizing fire fighting operations, the disclosed systems may be used to observe fire fighting equipment and/or firefighters wearing background-contrasting, reflective yellow clothing by direct or infrared GPS/DGPS/LPS airborne and/or ground observation backed up by multiple supplemental scanning technologies and computer processors, corroborated by the firefighters’ mobile, handheld GPS personal transceivers, all of which enable the computer processors at the observing or base location to make realtime decisions regarding the personnel’s endangerment or to direct improved fire fighting response if they are not in the right location relative to hotspots of fire. Therefore, we discern no persuasive merit in the Appellants’ arguments that neither Breed nor Lemelson teaches a method for estimating the positions of handheld devices. The Appellants’ arguments against Riewe and Soliman are also unavailing. In this regard, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s findings, analysis, and conclusion (Ans. 7–9, 29–30), and therefore, we adopt them as our own. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 6 is obvious.”) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag. Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). See also Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (an analysis of obviousness “may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”). For these reasons, we uphold Rejection I. II. Claims 18, 19, & 36 The Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 36 (App. Br. 14–15). Therefore, claims 18 and 19 stand or fall with claim 36. Claim 36 recites: 36. A method for estimating position of a first handheld position estimation device in communication with a second handheld position estimation device, comprising: receiving inertial position information, global positioning information and ranging information with a first handheld position estimation device, including receiving information from an accelerometer in the first handheld position estimation device to determine when a value of acceleration of the first handheld position estimation device is greater than an acceleration threshold that is indicative of freefall of the first handheld position estimation device; determining a distance between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device derived from a transmission time of a signal transmitted between the first handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device; determining an estimation of a position of the first handheld position estimation device based on a filtered combination of the inertial position information, the global positioning information and the ranging information, including the distance determined by the communication between the first Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 7 handheld position estimation device and the second handheld position estimation device; determining a value descriptive of accuracy of the estimation of the position of the first handheld position estimation device; displaying the value descriptive of accuracy on the first handheld position estimation device; displaying the estimation of the position of the first handheld position estimation device and the value descriptive of the accuracy of the estimation of the first handheld position estimation device on the second handheld position estimation device, when the value of acceleration of the first handheld position estimation device exceeds the acceleration threshold; instructing a user of the first handheld position estimation device to deploy a relay node via a display on the first handheld position estimation device; and receiving global positioning information and ranging information at the first handheld position estimation device from the relay node deployed by the user, wherein the filtered combination on which the estimation of the first handheld position estimation device is based includes the global positioning information and the ranging information from the relay node. (App. Br. 20–22.) The Appellants state that claim 36 recites limitations similar to those of claim 15 and, thus, rely on the same arguments offered in support of claim 15 (id. at 14). We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above. The Appellants also argue that Rorabaugh teaches determining relative positions without using external positioning sources such as GPS and that, therefore, it teaches away from the invention recited in claim 36 (App. Br. 15, citing Rorabaugh ¶¶ 5, 6). As found by the Examiner (Ans. 33–34), Rorabaugh teaches the use of GPS in an alternative embodiment Appeal 2012-011851 Application 11/512,535 8 Rorabaugh ¶ 106). Moreover, Rorabaugh’s teaching that GPS has certain drawbacks in certain environments does not constitute a teaching away. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Even reading Yamaguchi’s description as discouraging use of epoxy for this purpose, Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known to the art.”). Therefore, we uphold Rejection II SUMMARY Rejections I and II are affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation