Ex Parte Fransioli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 26, 2009

10827881 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANK E. FRANSIOLI
____________

Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: October 26, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention pertains to location-based messaging to a
mobile user with a wireless portable receiving device. Specifically, the
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

2
portable device (1) determines its location and direction of travel, and (2)
communicates this information to a service provider. The service provider
then sends a message to the portable device whose content is based on the
received location and travel direction information.1 Claim 1 is illustrative
with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for providing location based messaging to a mobile user
with a wireless portable receiving device, the portable device defining a
location of the portable device and defining a direction of travel of the
portable device, the method comprising:

the portable device determining the location of the portable device;

the portable device determining the direction of travel of the portable
device;

the portable device communicating the location and direction of
travel to a service provider;

establishing a message including content based on the location of the
portable device and further based on the direction of travel of the portable
device; and

sending the message from the service provider to the portable device
so that the user receives the location and direction of travel based content.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Fultz US 6,021,371 Feb. 1, 2000
Hollenberg US 6,091,956 July 18, 2000
(filed June 12, 1997)

1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Fultz. Ans. 3-5.

1 See generally Abstract; Spec. 2:6-14; 7:8-19; Fig. 2.
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fultz and Hollenberg. Ans. 5-7.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer2 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellant. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 1,3 the Examiner finds that Fultz
discloses all of the claimed subject matter including the mobile unit
determining its location and direction of travel and communicating this
information to a service provider as claimed. Ans. 3-4.
Appellant argues that Fultz’s mobile unit does not determine and
communicate its location and direction of travel as claimed, since (1) Fultz
uses Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites to determine the vehicle
location, and (2) the user verbally requests information. App. Br. 4-5; Reply
Br. 3-4.

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 1,
2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 1, 2007; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed December 3, 2007.

3 Appellant argues claims 1-5 and 13-15 together as a group. See App. Br.
3-5. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

4
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
ISSUE
Under § 102, has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 by finding that Fultz’s portable device:
(1) determines its location;
(2) determines its direction of travel; and
(3) communicates this information to a service provider as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Fultz
1. Fultz discloses a vehicle navigation system including a mobile unit
that communicates with at least one service location. The mobile unit
includes a position determination system that uses radio transmissions from
GPS satellites to determine the vehicle’s location. The user contacts a
service provider by pressing a button on the mobile unit, and verbally
requests information. Information pertaining to the request is then
transmitted back to the user as voice and/or data. Fultz, col. 3, ll. 32-65.
2. In one embodiment, mobile unit 2 transmits an inquiry 3 to base
station 1. The inquiry can be a request for (1) specific travel information, or
(2) general information (e.g., the location of various roadside services). A
similar inquiry 5 is transmitted to auxiliary service provider 10 to request
various services (e.g., emergency medical services). Fultz, col. 5, ll. 35-54;
Fig. 1.

Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

5
3. Inquiries 3 and 5 include location data which indicates the mobile
unit’s location. This location data may be transmitted (1) in the background
as blank and burst sequential data segments, or (2) over a separate
communications channel. Fultz, col. 6, ll. 7-11; Fig. 1.
4. The location data, coupled with the user’s request, allows the
requested information to be easily provided to the mobile unit without the
user having to give his location verbally to the base station. Fultz, col. 6, ll.
11-16.
5. Location data is obtained by a receiver which receives position
determination data from GPS satellites. The receiver is coupled to position
signal processing circuitry that determines the receiver’s location by
analyzing the position determination data. Fultz, col. 6, ll. 17-25.
6. Figure 4 illustrates the components of the mobile unit 2 which (1)
receive and amplify data broadcast from satellites 401-403; (2) demodulate
the radio signals via GPS radio frequency circuit board 407; and (3) transmit
the signals to digital processor 408 to determine the vehicle’s location based
on the received signals. Fultz, col. 4, ll. 66-67; col. 7, ll. 40-62; Fig. 4.
7. The text of Fultz’s claim 1 recites that (1) a satellite signal
receiver, and (2) position signal processing circuitry are both disposed
within a mobile unit. The claim further recites that the position signal
processing circuitry analyzes position determining signals to determine the
receiver’s position. Fultz, col. 12, ll. 43-51.
8. In Figure 8, Fultz discloses an embodiment where the user at
mobile unit 302 can communicate with base station 301 by initiating an
inquiry 303. As such, the user can verbally request navigational information
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

6
in the form of a “trip ticket” from his current position to a desired
destination. Fultz, col. 10, ll. 22-28; Fig. 8.
9. The inquiry includes information regarding the position and
direction of travel of mobile unit 302 transmitted digitally in the background
or at the beginning or end of the communication. Fultz, col. 10, ll. 28-31;
Fig. 8.
10. The mobile unit 302 can also submit inquiries 305 and 307 to
auxiliary service providers 309 and 310, respectively, to request roadside
assistance and local information (provider 309) and emergency medical
services (provider 310). Along with voice communication, the mobile unit’s
location is also transmitted to the auxiliary service providers which then use
the received location and direction of travel information in responding to the
mobile unit. Fultz, col. 10, ll. 45 − col. 11, l. 17; Fig. 8.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
element of a claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Appl.
Dig. Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore &
Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 1. In reaching this
conclusion, we find that Fultz’s mobile unit (i.e., “portable device”) (1)
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

7
determines its location and direction of travel, and (2) communicates this
information to a service provider as claimed.
First, Fultz’s mobile unit determines its location by virtue of its
position determination system contained within the unit itself. See FF 1 and
5-7. Although this system uses data received from satellites to determine the
vehicle’s location (FF 5-6) as Appellant argues (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 3-
4), it is the components within the mobile unit itself which actually determine
the vehicle’s location based on this received satellite data, namely the digital
processor 408. See FF 6. That Fultz’s claim 1 expressly recites disposing
both (1) a satellite signal receiver, and (2) position signal processing
circuitry that determines the receiver’s position within the mobile unit (FF 7;
emphasis added) only bolsters this finding. Based on these teachings, we
therefore find that Fultz’s mobile unit determines its location as claimed.
Second, we find that Fultz’s mobile unit likewise determines its
direction of travel. According to Fultz, the user’s inquiry for navigational
information from a base station in Figure 8 can include information
regarding the position and direction of travel of mobile unit 302 that is
transmitted as an adjunct to the user’s verbal inquiry. FF 9. Similar
inquiries including the mobile unit’s location and direction of travel can also
be submitted to auxiliary service providers, which then use this information
in responding to the inquiries. FF 10. Based on these teachings, we
therefore find that Fultz’s mobile unit determines its direction of travel as
claimed.
Lastly, for the reasons noted above, we find that Fultz’s mobile unit
communicates its location and direction of travel to a service provider.
Although the user in Fultz verbally requests information in connection with
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

8
an inquiry (FF 1, 2, and 8) as Appellant argues (Reply Br. 3-4), the location
and direction of travel information, however, is transmitted as an adjunct to
this voice communication.
Fultz indicates that data regarding the mobile unit’s location can be
transmitted in a manner distinct from the voice communication, namely by
transmitting the location data (1) in the background as blank and burst
sequential data segments, or (2) over a separate communications channel.
FF 3. Notably, coupling the location data in this manner with the user’s
verbal request enables providing the requested information to the mobile
unit without the user having to give his location verbally to the base station.
FF 4; emphasis added. As such, the mobile unit communicates this
information as an adjunct to—and distinct from—the user’s verbal request.
See id. That Fultz indicates that information regarding the mobile unit’s
position and direction of travel can be transmitted in conjunction with the
user’s verbal request, namely transmitted digitally in the background or at
the beginning or end of the communication (FF 8-9), only bolsters this
finding.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, and claims 2-5 and 13-15,
which fall with claim 1.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 6-12 over Fultz and Hollenberg (Ans. 5-7). Appellant does not
particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively
Appeal 2009-001979
Application 10/827,881

9
rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of obviousness, but merely notes that
Hollenberg fails to cure the deficiencies of Fultz noted in connection with
claim 1 (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4-5). Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-12 for the same reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. The rejection is therefore sustained.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
claims 1-5 and 13-15 under § 102, and (2) claims 6-12 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc

Qwest Communications International Inc.
1801 California Street, # 900
Denver CO 80202