Ex Parte Chhabra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2017

13558155 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2017)

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.
13/558,155 07/25/2012 Kapil Chhabra 5607.1230001 (P12189US1) 1659
63975 7590 11/03/2017
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
SHEDRICK, CHARLES TERRELL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2017 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):
e-office @ skgf.com
Apple-eOA @ skgf.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAPIL CHHABRA, VEERENDRA BOODANNAVAR,
and TITO THOMAS1
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, all pending claims of the application. We have jurisdiction
over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. See
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Appellants requested an oral hearing for this appeal on February 17,
2016,which was scheduled for October 3, 2017. Appellants subsequently
elected to waive hearing attendance in a communication dated September
20, 2017. Accordingly, the appeal will be decided based on the briefs
submitted by Appellants.
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the invention relates to facilitating location
awareness in mobile computing devices while also reducing power
consumption. Spec. 135, Abstract.3
Claims 1,11, and 20 are independent claims. Claims 1, 2, and 5 are
representative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized:
1. A computer implemented method for performing
enhanced background location scans to facilitate location based
geo-fencing, the method comprising:
receiving in a baseband processor of a computing device
identifiers for one or more preferred wireless networks that are
proximate to a location;
in the baseband processor, performing a background scan
to detect local wireless networks proximate to the computing
device, wherein performing the background scan comprises
acquiring identifiers for the detected networks, wherein the
baseband processor is coupled to an application processor in the
computing device, and wherein the application processor is in a
sleep state during the background scan; and
upon determining a logical intersection between the
received identifiers and the detected identifiers of the local set of
wireless networks, triggering an event to wake up the application
processor from the sleep state.
2. The computer implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the received identifiers comprise BSSIDs that
uniquely identify access points', and
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants’ Specification filed July 25, 2012
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed December 19,
2014; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed July 21, 2015; (4) the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 17, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 17, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
wherein receiving the identifiers comprises receiving at
least one specification of an event that is to be triggered upon at
least one of entering proximity to the location or exiting
proximity to the location.
5. The computer implemented method of claim 2,
wherein the set of identifiers associated with the location
comprises:
identifiers for one or more wireless networks in the
location that have previously been accessed by the computing
device; and
identifiers for one or more neighboring networks that can
be detected from the location.
Appeal Br. 22—23.
REFERENCE AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by
Huang (US 2011/0250871 Al; Oct. 13, 2011). Final Act. 3-7.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Examiner errs in finding Huang discloses
“receiving in a baseband processor of a computing device identifiers for one
or more preferred wireless networks that are proximate to a location,” and
“upon determining a logical intersection between the received identifiers
and the detected identifiers of the local set of wireless networks, triggering
3
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
an event to wake up the application processor from the sleep state, ” as
recited in claim 1.
(2) Whether the Examiner errs in finding Huang discloses “the
received identifiers comprise BSSIDs that uniquely identify access points,”
as recited in claim 2.
(3) Whether the Examiner errs in finding Huang discloses
“identifiers for one or more wireless networks in the location that have
previously been accessed by the computing device” and “identifiers for one
or more neighboring networks that can be detected from the location,” as
recited in claim 5.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions, and we adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—5) and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—13) in response
to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 10-20). We highlight the following
points for emphasis.
Issue 1 — claim 1
With respect to independent claim 1, The Examiner finds Huang
discloses “receiving in a baseband processor of a computing device
identifiers for one or more preferred wireless networks that are proximate to
a location.” Final Act. 3 (citing Huang || 4—6 and Fig. 1).
4
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
Huang’s Figure 1 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
FIG. 1
Huang’s Figure 1 shows mobile device 100 moving from first cell 112
to second cell 114, an approximate distance d, based on the distance between
center 122 of first determined location 120 in first cell 112 and the center
126 of second determined location 124 in second cell 114. Huang 125.
Appellants argue Huang is limited “to the baseband subsystem
monitoring for changes in cellular communication network signals and
activating (waking) the application subsystem from a power-saving mode
based on changes” (Appeal Br. 12) and therefore doesn’t disclose “receiving
identifiers for one or more preferred wireless networks,” as recited in
claim 1.
We are not persuaded because we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that “to monitor the system must receive the information being monitored
and the system must know what specifically to monitor for, in order to detect
a change existing information must be compared to new information (e.g.,
5
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
0022 a change of location identifiers - comparing existing location to a new
location).” Ans. 3 (citing Huang 122.)
Specifically, referring to Figure 1 above, Huang discloses a change of
location identifiers can indicate a change of location, such as when “a
change of current cell ID from a first cell ID to a second cell ID can indicate
mobile device 100 has moved from a first cell [112] to a second cell [114].”
Huang 122. Appellants fail to persuasively establish Examiner error in the
finding that Huang’s cell ID discloses the claimed wireless network
identifiers.
Appellants argue “Huang does not describe the baseband subsystem
making determinations regarding logical intersections between ‘received
identifiers’ and ‘detected identifiers.’” Appeal Br. 13. Appellants further
argue “recognizing a difference between the different cell IDs in Huang is
not ‘determining a logical intersection between the received identifiers
....’” Reply Br. 3^1.
We are not persuaded. Huang discloses that a location 124 of mobile
device 100 is determined by location monitoring program 108 using location
identifier signals such as a cell ID provided by cell 114. Huang || 20-22.
Huang further discloses “[w]hen mobile device travels from cell 112
identified by the first cell ID to cell 114 identified by a second cell ID,
location monitoring program 108 can detect the change of cell IDs and send
the notification of the change of cell IDs to application subsystem 102 as a
notification.” Huang 123. “Application subsystem 102 can determine
location 124 by performing a lookup using the second cell ID. The lookup
can be performed in a database in application subsystem 102.” Huang 124.
6
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
As described, in Huang, a location of the device 100 is determined by
obtaining previously received identifiers including the cell ID from a stored
database and comparing the received identifiers from the database for the
cell ID to detected identifiers currently received by the mobile device 100.
See Huang || 20-23. “Application subsystem 102 can ‘wake up,’ or be
activated, from the power-saving mode. . . . The activation can be triggered
by ... a notification from baseband subsystem 104 that monitors the cell
IDs.” Huang 128. Accordingly, in view of the preceding summary of the
portions of Huang cited by the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that “to detect the change [in device 100’s location] the baseband
processor must first receive information that would allow the detection (i.e.,
identifiers such as the cell ID). The Baseband processor then determines if
the detection includes any changes (i.e., the baseband processor makes a
comparison - logical comparison -intersection between the previous
information and the new information).” Ans. 12. We also agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Huang discloses a logical intersection as claimed
(Ans. 10—12), namely by determining whether received identifiers from the
database in application subsystem 102 match the detected identifiers
currently received by the mobile device 100. See Huang || 21—24.
We, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, which
recite similar limitations and are not argued separately, for similar reasons.
See Appeal Br. 10. Dependent claims 2—4, 6—10, 12, 14, 15, and 17—19, are
not argued separately, and thus, fall with their respective independent
claims. See generally Appeal Br. 14—20; See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
Issue 2 — claim 2
Appellants argue Huang fails to disclose basic service set identifiers
(“BSSIDs”) that uniquely identify access points. “In fact, Huang does not
use the term BSSID or terms related to BSSID (BSS, service set, etc.).”
Appeal Br. 16.
We are not persuaded. A prior art reference can anticipate a claimed
invention even though it describes the claimed subject matter using different
terms. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“These elements must
be arranged as in the claim . . ., but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test”, i.e.,
identity of terminology is not required.). Here, although the terminology is
not identical, the Examiner finds “[t]he BSSIDs are met by the statement of
Huang that the location identifiers can include, for example, a mobile
country code (MCC), a mobile network code (MNC), a location area code
(LAC), and a cell identifier (cell ID) of the cellular communication
network.” Ans. 12.
The Microsoft Computer Dictionary defines basic service set as “[t]he
communication stations, or nodes, on a wireless LAN.” Microsoft Computer
Dictionary 53 (5th ed. 2002). In view of this interpretation, Appellants fail
to demonstrate that the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad or is
not “consistent with the specification.” In re Smith International Inc., No
2016-2303, 2017 WL 4247407 at *5 (Fed. Cir. 2017) citing In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that location identifiers
transmitted by Huang’s cellular network disclose the claimed BSSIDs. See
Ans. 12.
8
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
Appellants argue Huang does not disclose ‘“receiving at least one
specification of an event that is to be triggered upon at least one of entering
proximity to the location or exiting proximity to the location,’” as recited in
claim 2, because Huang does not “describe the baseband subsystem
receiving any specification of an event that is to be triggered.” Appeal
Br. 17. Appellants further argue “Huang is limited to describing
applications performing tasks when the device has traveled a ‘threshold
distance’” but does not “describe particular locations and/or entering or
exiting proximity to a particular location.” Id.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Huang
discloses “detects a change in location” of the wireless device 100. Ans. 13.
Namely, in order to determine the threshold distance of the device, Huang
discloses detecting changing locations based on location identifiers received
from different cells. See Huang || 21, 22. Moreover, one of the sections of
Huang cited by the Examiner discloses that “[application program 106 can
be configured to reside in memory of mobile device 106, and to be invoked
or notified (event) when mobile device 100 travels a threshold distance from
first location to a second location.” Huang 119. We agree that Huang’s
invoked event discloses the triggering of an event as claimed.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2, and
of claim 13, for which similar arguments are provided. See Appeal Br. 14.
9
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
Issue 3 — claim 5
Appellants argue Huang fails to disclose “the baseband subsystem
receiving a set of identifiers associated with a location that comprise
‘identifiers for one or more wireless networks in the location that have
previously been accessed by the computing device’ and ‘identifiers for one
or more neighboring networks that can be detected from the location,’” as
recited in dependent claim 5.
We find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive because Appellants fail to
specifically rebut the Examiner’s finding that Huang discloses previously
accessed identifiers. The Examiner finds
Huang teaches in at least 0022 for example that the change of
location identifiers can indicate a change of location. For
example, a change of current cell ID from a first cell ID to a
second cell ID can indicate mobile device 100 has moved from
a first cell to a second cell (i.e., the current ID would meet the
previous cell and a second ID would be the new - first and
second clearly indicates a sequence of at least previous and
present events).
Ans. 13 (citing Huang | 22).
Appellants contend “Huang remains deficient for the same reasons
presented by Appellants in Appellants’ Appeal Brief,” but do not respond to
the Examiner’s additional findings. Reply Br. 8. Consequently, Appellants
have not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of
anticipation, and we sustain the rejection of claim 5, and of claim 16, for
which similar arguments are provided. See Appeal Br. 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a).
10
Appeal 2016-003689
Application 13/558,155
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11