Ex Parte Deloach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2014

11137922 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES D. DELOACH, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2011-013279
Application 11/137,922
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013279
Application 11/137,922

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Spinks (US 2001/0029534 A1, pub. Oct. 11, 2001) and Loushine (US
2005/0232189 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2005). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “calibrating a location system using
user input.” Spec., para. [001]. Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter.
1. A method of calibrating a location system,
comprising the steps of:
receiving connection information regarding
the connection of a device to a network access
point;
querying a user to provide input regarding a
physical location associated with the device;
receiving user input regarding the physical
location associated with the device connected to
the network access point;
determining, from the user input, a physical
location of the network access point; and
storing, within a storage device, the
connection information and user input.
Appeal 2011-013279
Application 11/137,922

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Spinks discloses the calibrating method of
claim 1 other than the steps of “querying a user to provide input regarding a
physical location associated with the device and determining, from the user
input, a physical location of the network access point.” Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner further finds that Loushine discloses “a method and system for
determining the location of subscriber’s devices” wherein “the physical
location of a client is determined based on a request to the client to enter
identification information” (Ans. 5) and the location determination “includes
making a request to query the user to provide a unique identifier” (Ans. 22
(emphasis added) (citing Loushine, Abstract)). From these findings, the
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Spinks “to query
a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with the
device and [to determine], from the user input, information regarding a
physical location of the network access point.” Ans. 5-6.
Appellant argues that Loushine fails to disclose querying a user to
determine the location of a network access point (App. Br. 10-13) and “it
cannot reasonably be said that Loushine cures Spinks’ failure to disclose
‘querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated
with the device’ and then using this user input to determine ‘a physical
location of the network access point’” (Reply Br. 3).1 We agree with
Appellant. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Loushine does not disclose
querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated

1 This argument is applicable to all of Appellant’s independent claims, each
of which recites a step, an instruction, or means for querying a user to
provide input regarding a physical location associated with a device.
Appeal 2011-013279
Application 11/137,922

4
with a device connected to a network. Rather, Loushine discloses several
procedures for obtaining location information which generally involve
querying the WLAN client and/or the client’s network access point. See,
e.g., Loushine, Abstract (“A location request is then made to a MSC/SGSN
servicing that WLAN network.”); para. [0021] (“an LBS client accesses an
industry wide interface provided by the GMLC and requests the physical
location of a mobile station or a WLAN client”); para. [0031] (“the gateway
location services module then determines the physical location of each
access point, by querying the local/regional database, for example, or by
querying the individual access points”); para. [0032] (“the gateway location
services module asks the WLAN client services module for the physical
location of the WLAN client”).
The Examiner appears to equate Loushine’s “client” with the term
“user” as used in Appellant’s claims. However, as noted by Appellant (App.
Br. 10), Loushine uses the term “client” to refer to user equipment.
Loushine, para. [0014]. On the other hand, the claim term “user,” when
interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification, refers to a person using a
device or equipment. See Spec. [016] (“[a] user of mobile computer system
100 inputs information regarding the physical location of the mobile
computer system”).
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-25 because it is grounded in part on the unsupported finding that
Loushine discloses querying a user to provide input regarding a physical
location associated with a device.

Appeal 2011-013279
Application 11/137,922

5
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-25.

REVERSED

mls