Ex Parte DAS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 5, 2016

13730591 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/730,591 12/28/2012
23696 7590 08/09/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Saumitra Mohan DAS
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
090687B1Cl 2702
EXAMINER
KAVLESKI, RYAN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAUMITRA MOHAN DAS, ALOK AGGARWAL,
A YMAN FA WZY NAGUIB, VINA Y SRIDHARA, and
EDWARD THOMAS LING HAM HARDIE
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-25, 27-31, 33-37, 39--43, and 45--48. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 26, 32, 38, and 44 are objected to, but are
indicated to be directed to allowable subject matter. Final Act. 23.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants' invention "relates to a using local maps and annotations
for location determination." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31, 37, and
43 are independent. Claims 1 and 25 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for facilitating a determination of a mobile
device's location based upon weighted Received Signal
Strength Indication (RSSI) and Round-Trip Time (RTT) data,
the method comprising:
obtaining location data corresponding to a plurality of
areas associated with a structure;
determining, with a processing unit, for each area of the
plurality of areas:
a condition of an environment associated with the
area, based on the location data, wherein the condition of
the environment associated with the area is related to
weighting RSSI and RTT data; and
weighting information based on the condition of
the environment associated with the area; and
sending the weighting information of each area of the
plurality of areas to the mobile device.
See App. Br. 16 (Claims App'x).
25. A method for determining a mobile device's location
based upon weighted Received Signal Strength Indication
(RS SI) and Round-Trip Time (R TT) data, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, with a mobile device, weighting information of
each area of a plurality of areas;
storing the weighting information of each area of the
plurality of areas in a memory of the mobile device;
2
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
obtaining an RSSI measurement and an RTT
measurement relating to an area in which the mobile device is
located;
using the weighting information of the area in which the
mobile device is located to determine:
a first weight for the RSSI measurement, and
a second weight for the R TT measurement; and
calculating the mobile device's location using the first
weight and the second weight.
See id. at 21 (Claims App'x).
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mendelson (US 2007 /0001904 Al; published
Jan. 4, 2007), Sheynblat (US 2005/0192024 Al; published Sept. 1, 2005)
("Sheynblat"), and Sheynblat et al. (US 2008/0032706 Al; published Feb. 7,
2008) ("Sheynblat '706"). See Final Act. 8-15.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mendelson, Sheynblat, Sheynblat '706, and Das et al. (US
2011/0081919 Al; published Apr. 7, 2011) ("Das"). See Final Act. 16.
Claims 25, 28-31, 34-37, 40-43, and 46-48 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mendelson, Sheynblat, and McPherson
et al. (US 2009/0201208 Al; published Aug. 13, 2009) ("McPherson"). See
Final Act. 17-22.
Claims 27, 33, 39, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mendelson, Sheynblat, McPherson, and Das. See Final
Act. 22-23.
3
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants' contentions are as follows:
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Mendelson, Sheynblat, and Sheynblat '706 would have taught or suggested
"weighting information based on the condition of the environment
associated with the area," as recited in claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Mendelson, Sheynblat, and McPherson would have taught or suggested
"using the weighting information of the area in which the mobile device is
located to determine: a first weight for the RSSI measurement, and a second
weight for the RTT measurement," as recited in claim 25?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's findings and explanations in light
of Appellants' arguments and contentions. We agree with the Examiner's
findings and explanations and, except as set forth below, we adopt them as
our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for
emphasis.
Claims 1-24
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Mendelson, Sheynblat, and Sheynblat '706 does not teach or suggest
"weighting information based on the condition of the environment
associated with the area," as recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 8.
Appellants argue that although Mendelson' s floor map teaches a "condition
of the environment associated with the area," Mendelson does not teach or
suggest "weighting information based on" its floor map. See Reply Br. 2--4;
4
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
App. Br. 8-10. Appellants further argue that although Sheynblat teaches the
idea of weighting and, therefore, "weighting information," Sheynblat's
weighting is based on measurement data (e.g., the variance of error in
pseudo-range measurements, height measurement, and reference time), not
on "the condition of the environment associated with the area," e.g., a map.
See Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 9.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. As found by the
Examiner, Sheynblat's system for determining the location of a mobile
device teaches "weighting information" by giving weights to initial position
estimate information and pseudo-range measurements. See Final Act. 11
(citing Sheynblat i-f 133); Ans. 22; see also Sheynblat i-fi-175-82. Sheynblat
further teaches or suggests that initial position estimate information and
pseudo-range measurements can be taken from different measuring systems,
each of which is available in, and performs according to, one or more
operating environments, e.g., indoors or outdoors. See Final Act. 11 (citing
Sheynblat i-fi-128-29, 31 ); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Sheynblat Table 1 ). From
these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would learn that given the
condition of a certain operating environment associated with an area (e.g.,
indoors or outdoors), the particular measurement system best suited for that
condition (e.g., SPS, Cell-ID, etc.) can be selected to obtain more accurate
measurements. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(explaining that in an obviousness analysis, "a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ"); see also Ans. 26 ("based upon a given environment ... certain
measurements can be determined based upon a given technique best suited
for that environment"); Adv. Act. 2 (citing Sheynblat Table 1); Final Act. 11
5
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
(citing Sheynblatifif 28-29, 31).
Therefore, because Sheynblat's weights are based on information and
measurements taken from different measurement systems that are selectable
"based on the condition of the environment associated with the area," we
find that Sheynblat' s weights teach or suggest "weighting information based
on the condition of the environment associated with the area" as recited in
claim 1. Our analysis is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which
provides examples of but does not specially define this limitation. See Spec.
iii! 101 ("weighting information such as heatmaps"), 104 ("weighting
information associated with an area can include any of a variety metrics that
could impact a confidence level ofRSSI and/or RTT data"), 105 ("weighting
information could include a confidence level based on one or more of these
confidence metrics"); 121, 124 ("Weighting information ... can include a
heatmap and/or other information indicating any of a variety of confidence
metrics that may inform a calculation of location based on RSSI and RTT
measurements to one or more access points."); Ans. 22.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over a combination of Mendelson,
Sheynblat, and Sheynblat '706. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 7, 13, and 19, and
dependent claims 2---6, 14--18, and 20-24, for which Appellants do not
present separate particularized arguments. See App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-
5.
6
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
Claims 25, 27-31, 33-37, 39--43, and 45--48
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because combination of
Mendelson, Sheynblat, and McPherson does not teach or suggest "using the
weighting information of the area in which the mobile device is located to
determine: a first weight for the RSSI measurement, and a second weight
for the RTT measurement." Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 12-13. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to show that Mendelson's floor
map, is used to determine "the first weight" and "the second weight." See
Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. As found by the
Examiner, Sheynblat's weights teach or suggest "weighting information of
the area in which the mobile device is located." See Final Act. 18 (citing
Sheynblat i-fi-128-29, 31, 133); Ans. 26; see also discussion regarding claim 1
supra. Also found by the Examiner, McPherson teaches determining the
location of a wireless device using signal strength measurements, i.e., "RSSI
measurements," and range measurements, i.e., "RTT measurements,"
wherein both the signal strength and range measurements are weighted using
received signal measurements. Final Act. 19 (citing McPherson Fig. 2 (item
36), i-fi-f 14, 29); Ans. 27; see also McPherson Fig. 2 (item 40); Fig. 3 (item
40); i130. In other words, McPherson teaches using received signal
measurements "to determine: a first weight for the RSSI measurement, and
a second weight for the RTT measurement." See McPherson Fig. 2, i-fi-f 14,
29-30. Further, these received signal measurements comprise different
measurements such as bit-error rate, received signal strength, receiver
metrics, and signal-to-noise ratio, see McPherson i-fi-f 11, 34, 35, 38.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would learn that McPherson's received
7
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
signal measurements are "weighting information" because one type of
received signal measurement can be used to weight received signal strength
measurements, while another type of received signal measurement can be
used to weight range measurements. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; McPherson
iTiT 11, 14, 29, 34, 35, 38.
Therefore, consistent with the Examiner's findings, McPherson, when
combined with Sheynblat, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation by
using received signal measurements comprising different types of
measurement information ("using the weighting information") to weight
McPherson's signal strength measurements and range measurements ("to
determine ... a first weight ... and a second weight"). Our analysis is
consistent with Appellants' Specification, which provides examples of but
does not specially define "weighting information." See Spec. iTiT 101, 104,
105; 121, 124, 126; Ans. 22.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 over a combination of Mendelson,
Sheynblat, and McPherson. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim
25, as well as the rejections of independent claims 31, 37, and 43, and
dependent claims 32-36, 38--42, and 44--48, for which Appellants do not
present separate particularized arguments. See App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-
6.
8
Appeal2015-003317
Application 13/730,591
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25, 27-31, 33-37,
39--43, and 45--48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is 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)(l) (2013).
See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9