Ex Parte Harper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12406378 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

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.
12/406,378 03/18/2009 Neil HARPER TCS-022489 US PRI 5298
116950 7590 02/19/2016
Daniel J. O''Neill
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.
275 West Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEIL HARPER and MARTIN DAWSON
____________

Appeal 2014-0014411,2
Application 12/406,378
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–14 and 16–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
According to Appellants, the invention relates to methods and systems
for locating a mobile device in a wireless communication network. See
Spec. ¶¶ 4, 5. Claims 1, 13, and 17 are the only independent claims under

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 18,
2009), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed July 18, 2013), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 6, 2013), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Answer,” mailed Sept. 6, 2013).
2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Maple Acquisition,
LLC.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2014-001441
Application 12/406,378

2

appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as representative of the appealed
claims.
1. A method for a mobile location center (MLC) to
determine a location of a mobile device in a wireless
communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a request initiated by the mobile device to determine
the location of the mobile device;
concurrently requesting global navigation satellite system
(GNSS) measurements from the mobile device and terrestrial
measurements from transceivers in the wireless communication
network;
receiving the GNSS measurements and at least one of the
terrestrial measurements;
calculating a GNSS location of the mobile device as a function
of the received GNSS measurements, and determining that the
location of the mobile device comprises the calculated GNSS
location when the calculated GNSS location meets a
predetermined accuracy threshold;
calculating a terrestrial location of the mobile device as a
function of the received terrestrial measurements, and
determining that the location of the mobile device comprises
the calculated terrestrial location when the calculated terrestrial
location meets the predetermined accuracy threshold; and
calculating a hybrid location of the mobile device as a function
of the received GNSS measurements and the received terrestrial
measurements when neither the calculated GNSS location nor
the calculated terrestrial location meets the predetermined
accuracy threshold, and determining that the location of the
mobile device comprises the calculated hybrid location when
the calculated hybrid location meets the predetermined
accuracy threshold.
Appeal Br., Claims App.

Appeal 2014-001441
Application 12/406,378

3

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
claims 1–8, 10–14, and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sheynblat (US 5,999,124, iss. Dec. 7, 1999) (hereinafter
“Sheynblat ’124”) and Sheynblat (US 2005/0192024 A1, pub. Sept. 1, 2005)
(hereinafter “Sheynblat ’024”); and
claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sheynblat ’124, Sheynblat ’024, and Dupray (US 6,249,252 B1, iss. June 19,
2001).
See Answer 2–9.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2–12 depend, recites the
following limitations:
calculating a GNSS location of the mobile device as a function
of the received GNSS measurements, and determining that the
location of the mobile device comprises the calculated GNSS
location when the calculated GNSS location meets a
predetermined accuracy threshold;
calculating a terrestrial location of the mobile device as a
function of the received terrestrial measurements, and
determining that the location of the mobile device comprises
the calculated terrestrial location when the calculated terrestrial
location meets the predetermined accuracy threshold; and
calculating a hybrid location of the mobile device as a function
of the received GNSS measurements and the received terrestrial
measurements when neither the calculated GNSS location nor
the calculated terrestrial location meets the predetermined
accuracy threshold, and determining that the location of the
mobile device comprises the calculated hybrid location when
Appeal 2014-001441
Application 12/406,378

4

the calculated hybrid location meets the predetermined
accuracy threshold.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Based on our review of the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see, e.g., Answer 2–3, 9–12), and
Appellants’ arguments (see Appeal Br. 8–13; see also Reply Br. 2–4), we
conclude that a preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner’s rejection that is based on a finding that Sheynblat ’024 discloses
calculating a hybrid location as claimed. Thus, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of claims 1–12.
More particularly, Appellants argue that Sheynblat ’024 does not
disclose calculating a hybrid location as a function of received GNSS and
terrestrial measurements when (i.e., after) a calculated terrestrial location
fails to meet a predetermined accuracy threshold as required by claim 1, but
instead that Sheynblat ’024 calculates a hybrid location before calculating a
terrestrial location. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In response, the Examiner
explains the basis for the finding that Sheynblat ’024 must calculate a
terrestrial location before calculating a hybrid location, stating
Applicant . . . argues . . . that Sheynblat ’024 calculates the
hybrid solution before calculating the terrestrial solution as per
Table 1[,] . . . [but,] by definition, a hybrid is composed of both
terrestrial and GNSS position determinations. It would be
impossible to calculate a hybrid solution before calculating a
terrestrial solution since a terrestrial solution is a prerequisite to
a hybrid solution.
Answer 12. We disagree with the Examiner, however, and conclude that
because the Examiner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that Sheynblat ’024 calculates a hybrid location from a (previously
calculated) terrestrial location, the Examiner fails to establish that
Appeal 2014-001441
Application 12/406,378

5

Sheynblat ’024 calculates the hybrid location after the terrestrial location
fails to meet a predetermined accuracy threshold as claimed. For example,
Sheynblat ’024 may calculate the hybrid location based on incomplete
terrestrial location information rather than a calculated terrestrial
location. In fact, as stated by Appellants, it appears that when
Sheynblat ’024’s GNSS location is unable to be calculated within a
predetermined accuracy threshold, “the hybrid location in Sheynblat ’024
[is] calculated using . . . (i) the initial position estimate and (ii)
measurements from both satellites and base stations,” and, thus the hybrid
location is not computed from any previously computed locations, either
GNSS or terrestrial. Reply Br. 4; see, e.g., Sheynblat ’024 ¶¶ 27, 41–59,
Table 1. For these reasons, the Examiner’s basis for the rejection (i.e., that it
would be impossible for Sheynblat ’024 to calculate the hybrid location
before computing the terrestrial location) is not supported by substantial
evidence. Further, it appears that, in fact, Sheynblat ’024’s only disclosure
of computing a terrestrial location occurs when the accuracy of neither the
GNSS location nor the hybrid location (that is computed from available
GNSS location information and terrestrial location information) is sufficient,
and this calculation of the hybrid location prior to the calculation of the
terrestrial location is in direct opposition to the limitations recited in
claim 1. See Reply Br. 3–4; see also, e.g., Sheynblat ’024 ¶¶ 27, 41–59,
Table 1.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 1–12. Independent claims 13 and 17, from which claims 14, 16, and
18–20 depend, recite similar limitations. See Appeal Br., Claims App.
Thus, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16–20.
Appeal 2014-001441
Application 12/406,378

6

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1–14 and 16–20.

REVERSED