Ex Parte Dawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2014

12333820 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARTIN DAWSON and NELL HARPER
____________

Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Martin Dawson and Nell Harper (“Appellants”) appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21, and
33-46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11, 33, 42, and 43 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is reproduced below.
1. A method for determining whether a wireless device has
transmitted one or more forged radio frequency (“RF”)
measurements, comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving at a wireless device a first set of signals
from a plurality of RF sources;
(b) transmitting the first set of signals from the wireless
device to a location determining system;
(c) determining an estimated location of the wireless
device at the location determining system as a function of the
transmitted first set of signals;
(d) receiving at the location determining system a second
set of signals from the plurality of RF sources;
(e) comparing information from the second set of signals
with the estimated location; and
(f) identifying the wireless device as having transmitted
one or more forged RF measurements if the information from
the second set of signals does not substantially correlate with
the estimated location.
App. Br. 11, Claims App’x.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Schipper US 5,754,657 May 19, 1998
Engel US 2006/0023655 A1 Feb. 2, 2006

Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

3
Rejections
Appellants seek review of the following rejections:
I. Claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 33, 35, 38-40, and 42 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Schipper; and
II. Claims 1-10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43-46 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schipper and Engel.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
OPINION
Appellants assert that “neither reference – alone or in combination”
discloses three elements of claim 1. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that
independent claims 11, 33, 42, and 43 recite similar elements as well. Id.
Because we disagree with Appellants’ characterization that each of the
independent claims recite similar limitations, we address Appellants’
arguments below in the context of the claims to which the rejection thereof
applies.1 Appellants raise an additional argument directed to dependent
claims 4 and 14, which we address in the context of Rejection II. Id. at 10.

1 For example, Appellants’ first argument is that Schipper “fails to disclose
or render obvious” claim 1’s recitation of “determining an estimated location
of the wireless device at the location determining system as a function of the
transmitted first set of signals.” App. Br. 5-7. Contrary to Appellants’
assertion, this claim language is not recited in claims 11 and 43.
Accordingly, this argument does not apply to Rejection I.

Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

4
Rejection I
The Examiner found that Schipper discloses each and every element
of claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 33, 35, 38-40, and 42. Ans. 5-7.
Appellants’ sole argument directed to an element of claims 11, 13, 15,
18, 20, 21, 33, 35, 38-40, or 42 is that Schipper fails to disclose that “the
claimed first and second signals are received in the same time period.”2
App. Br. 7. Appellants assert that “Schipper discloses that the first and
second signals are received at distinct and different time intervals.” Id.
(citing Schipper, col. 14, ll. 40-44).
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner explains that the
claim requires a comparison of information from the first and second set of
signals, and because the Specification provides no additional clarification,
the Examiner construes the limitation “‘substantially the same period’ as
requiring receipt of first and second signals during time periods that are [the]
same enough to provide a meaningful comparison.” Ans. 13.
In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of what
constitutes “substantially the same time period” is not supported by case law
and could result in a time period of 2 days, 20 days, or 200 days using the
Examiner’s logic. Reply Br. 6.
Claim 11 recites a similar method as claim 1 for determining whether
a wireless device has transmitted one or more forged radio frequency
measurements, but includes the recitation that “the first and second sets of

2 Appellants do not separately argue claims 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 33, 35,
38-40, and 42. See App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-8. We select claim 11 as
representative. Accordingly, claims 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 33, 35, 38-40, and 42
stand or fall with claim 11. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); see also
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

5
signals are received at the location determining system during substantially
the same time period.” App. Br. 13, Claims App’x.
We interpret the claim language, where necessary, giving the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification.
In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The ordinary and
customary meaning of “time period” in this context is “an interval of time.”
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (2001), accessed at
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/chambdict/period/0?searchId
=ca7487c3-b8db-11e3-9d8c-12c1d36507ee&result=0 (last visited Mar. 31,
2014). The use of “time period” in the Specification is consistent with its
ordinary and customary meaning. See, e.g., Spec. para. [0020] (“The
method may comprise receiving at a location determining system a first set
and a second set of signals from a plurality of RF sources during
substantially the same time period . . . .”); para. [0037] (“these additional
available signals are measured during substantially the same time slice or
period”).
As reflected above, the language of claim 11 and Appellants’
Specification do not limit or otherwise specify a particular “interval of time”
that constitutes the “time period” recited in claim 11. Further, while we
understand why the Examiner proposed the claim interpretation noted supra,
we do not agree that “time period” claimed is limited to a time period in
which only a “meaningful comparison” may be made. The claim, as drafted,
and the Specification, as written, do not so limit the phrase “time period.”
For that matter, the phrase “same time period,” which means the “same
interval of time,” does not specify a particular interval of time except that
whatever interval is chosen, the interval during which the first and second
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

6
set of signals are received is the same. Thus, the phrase “same time period”
is not, in and of itself, limited to a time period of a specific duration.
Additionally, we also note that the claimed phrase is “substantially the same
time period,” which results in an even broader understanding than if the
phrase were “the same time period.”
Accordingly, even though we agree with Appellants that Schipper’s
first and second sets of signals are not received at precisely the same time,
because the claim recites “substantially the same time period,” and because
no specific “time period” is defined or explained in either the claim or the
written description of the Specification, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Schipper’s sets of signals are received at substantially the same
time period (the time period of Schipper including whatever time delays
there may be between receiving the first and second set of signals). Thus,
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive and we sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II
The Examiner concluded that Schipper and Engel would have
rendered the subject matter of claims 1-10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and
43-46 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43-46
Appellants’ first argument directed to an element of claims 1-10, 14,
16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43-46 is that Schipper does not disclose
“determining an estimated location of the wireless device at the location
determining system as a function of the transmitted first set of signals.”3

3 Appellants raise an argument directed to claims 4 and 14, but otherwise do
not separately argue claims 1-10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43-46.
See App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-8. We select claim 1 as representative.
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

7
App. Br. 5. Appellants assert that Schipper’s “‘determined’ location . . . is
not determined at the location determination station.” Id. at 6. According to
Appellants:
In this instance, the [Examiner] has provided an unreasonable
interpretation of “determining” as simply extracting the asserted
putative location which fails to anticipate or render obvious the
claimed limitations of determining the estimated location, since
the extracted asserted location of Schipper is not a function of
the transmitted first set of signals from the mobile device but
rather is extracted as a function of a pre-established format, not
as a function of the data signal d(t) received by the mobile
device and then transmitted from the putative source.
Id. at 6-7.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner “disagrees that
Schipper’s asserted putative source location has been cited against the
limitation ‘determining an estimated location of wireless device[’] . . . .
[The] Examiner has relied instead upon the estimated putative source
location recited in step 51 of Fig. 2B.” Ans. 11-12. The Examiner further
explains that Schipper “teaches that the estimated putative source location is
determined as a function of the transmitted first set of signals.” Id. at 12
(citing Schipper, col. 7, ll. 29-46).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants additionally assert that in Schipper,
“[t]he data receiving station receives the augmented data signal and
determines or estimates the putative source location using extracted
components from the augmented data signal (not the transmitted first set of

Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-10, 16, 17, 19, 34, 36, 37, 41, and 43-46 stand or
fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii); see also In re Lovin,
652 F.3d at 1351. We address Appellants’ separate argument directed to
claims 4 and 14 infra.
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

8
signals) and knowledge of its own location (also not the transmitted first set
of signals).” Reply Br. 5.
Schipper discloses that a putative source receives a stream of location
determination signals, e.g., “Y(tr; j)” (Schipper, col. 6, ll. 34-35) from
“Y-code signal sources 19-j” (id. at col. 9, l. 45). See also Schipper at fig. 1.
The putative source then augments the data signal to include “segments
g[tk(m),tk(m+1); j; ps] of unprocessed LD [i.e., location determination] signal
values Y(tr; j).” Id. at col. 6, ll. 52-53. The augmented signal is transmitted
from the putative source to the data receiving station, where the data
receiving station
can estimate a location . . . of the putative source, based on the
received LD signal segments g[tk(m),tk(m)+1; j; ps] and its own
corresponding LD signal segments . . . compare the asserted
location . . . with its own estimated location . . . and determine
whether to authenticate, or to withhold authentication of, the
asserted location . . . of the putative source at the time.
Id. at col. 7, ll. 29-36.
As reflected above, Schipper discloses that the location determination
signals are included in the augmented data signal that is ultimately sent to
the data receiving station where an estimated location of the putative source
is determined. Thus, the estimated location of the putative source is
determined at the location determination station of Schipper using the
augmented data signal, which includes the transmitted first set of signals.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Second, Appellants assert that the Examiner “incorrectly asserted that
Engel teaches: (d) receiving at the location determining system a second set
of signals from the plurality of RF sources by citing ‘other devices’ step 410,
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

9
Figure 4 as a basis”4 and that Engel does not disclose “element (e) of
comparing information from the second set of signals with the estimated
location or with information from the second set of signals.”5 App. Br. 9.
Appellants assert that the Examiner’s findings with respect to Engel are
erroneous because “the plurality of RF sources are not just any ‘RF source’
. . . but are – as claimed – ‘the plurality of RF sources’ (emphasis supplied)
from which ‘a first set of signals’ was received by the wireless device.” Id.
In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner explains that
claims 4 and 14 further limit claims 1 and 11, respectively, to receiving the
first and second set of signals from “mutually exclusive (i.e. different) RF
sources” and thus the Examiner’s interpretation of claims 1 and 11 takes the
further narrowing of the claims into account. Ans. 13-14. In particular, the
Examiner interprets claims 1 and 11 as not “requir[ing] that the first set of
signals comprise signals from each RF source of the plurality of RF sources,
or that the second set of signals comprise signals from each RF source of the
plurality of RF sources.” Id. at 14. Rather, the claims “may be construed as
requiring receipt of a first set of signals from some of a plurality of RF
sources, and receipt of a second set of signals from some of said sources.”
Id. 14-15. The Examiner further explains that this interpretation of the claim
language results in language compatible with that of claims 4 and 14, which

4 Claim 43 does not recite this step.
5 We note that Appellants argue that Engel does not disclose step (d) and do
not dispute whether Schipper discloses this step. The Examiner, however,
relied upon Schipper, not Engel, as disclosing this step. See Ans. 8. Thus,
our discussion above is directed to Appellants’ argument with respect to step
(e) because Appellants’ arguments regarding step (d) are not responsive to
the Examiner’s proposed combination as reflected in the rejection.
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

10
recite that the RF source for the first set of signals is “mutually exclusive” of
the RF source for the second set of signals. Id. at 14.
In their Reply Brief, Appellants reiterate that “[t]hese ‘other devices’
as relied upon by the [Examiner] cannot properly be construed as ‘the
plurality of RF sources’ as claimed as there is no teaching that these other
devices (whether or not they are an RF source) are associated with the first
set of signals.” Reply Br. 7.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because it is based on an
interpretation of claims 1 and 11 that is inconsistent with claims 4 and 14.
As noted above, claims 4 and 14 further limit claims 1 and 11, respectively,
to “wherein the RF source for the first set of signals is mutually exclusive of
the RF source for the second set of signals.” App. Br. 11 (claim 4), 13
(claim 14), Claims App’x. Because claims 4 and 14 narrow the RF source
of the first set of signals such that they are different than the RF source of
the second set of signals, claims 1 and 11 must be broad enough to include
the same RF sources for the first and second sets of signals as well as
different RF sources for the first and second sets of signals.
In light of the use of the phrase “the plurality of RF sources” to
describe the sources of the second set of signals, which refers back to the
plurality of RF sources which transmit the first set of signals, we consider
that while “the plurality” of sources must be the same (because of the
antecedent basis), claims 1 and 11 do not require that each RF source in “the
plurality” send both sets of signals. For example, if “the plurality” of RF
sources include RF sources 1-10, and RF sources 1-5 send the first set of
signals while RF sources 6-10 send the second set of signals, “the plurality”
sent both sets of signals, but the RF sources for each set of signals is
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

11
“mutually exclusive.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that this
interpretation of the claims gives meaning to each of the claims and each of
the terms therein, unlike the interpretation proposed by Appellants.6
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 4 and 14
Appellants’ assert that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 14 is
erroneous because “the mutually exclusive feature of Claim[s] 4 and 14
relates not to the RF sources as seemingly indicated by the [Examiner’s]
discussion (see pp. 4-5 and 9 of the Action) but rather to the mutual
exclusivity of the first and second signals.” App. Br. 10.
Claims 4 and 14 clearly recite “wherein the RF source for the first set
of signals is mutually exclusive of the RF source for the second set of
signals.” App. Br. 11 (claim 4), 13 (claim 14), Claims App’x (emphases
added). Thus, the claims recite that the “RF source . . . is mutually exclusive
of the RF source.” Id. (emphasis added). The phrase “mutually exclusive
of” clearly modifies the RF sources and thus Appellants’ argument is
unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection II.

6 Applying Appellants’ interpretation to our hypothetical would result in
“the plurality” of RF sources, i.e., RF sources 1-10, sending both sets of
signals and thus would render claims 4 and 14 indefinite because the RF
source for the second set of signals would not be mutually exclusive of the
RF source for the second set of signals and there would be no way to satisfy
the limitations of clams 4 and 14. We decline to interpret claims 1 and 11
such that claims 4 and 14 are indefinite.
Appeal 2012-004711
Application 12/333,820

12
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11, 13-21,
and 33-46.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw