Ex Parte Hay

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2009

10293771 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CURTIS L. HAY
_____________

Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 March 27, 2009
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 19-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to obtaining global
positioning system (GPS) interference information from a mobile vehicle
communication service by requesting interference information
corresponding to a specified profile from at least one mobile vehicle within a
mobile vehicle communication service. The method and the system provide
for monitoring the mobile vehicle communication service, receiving the
requested interference information from the at least one mobile vehicle
within the mobile vehicle communication service, and determining at least
one interference region based on the received interference information. The
information related to the at least one determined interference region is then
transmitted to a client (Spec. 4:8-16).
Claim 19, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
19. A method for modifying a GPS system interference region, the
method comprising:
defining a GPS interference region;
selecting a vehicle-related profile;
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

3
requesting interference information from at least one mobile vehicle
in the interference region based on the selected profile;
receiving interference information based on the request; and
modifying the GPS interference region based on the received
interference information.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Wong US 6,484,096 B2 Nov. 19, 2002
(filed Mar. 16, 2001)

Cervello US 2002/0060995 A1 May 23, 2002
(filed Jul. 9, 2001)

Brodie US 6,643,587 B2

Nov. 4, 2003
(filed Feb. 26, 2002)

Liu US 6,871,139 B2 Mar. 22, 2005
(filed Aug. 10, 2001)

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 19-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brodie in view of Liu, Cervello, and Wong.
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 19-39 as a group with claims
19, 29, and 39 as representative (App. Br. 4).2 Accordingly, claims 20-28

2 Only arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

4
and 30-38 stand or fall with claim 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii)
(2004).

OBVIOUSNESS
ISSUE
Appellant contends that there is no motivation to combine Liu with
Brodie (App. Br. 5). Appellant explains that uninterrupted GPS is critical to
Liu because Liu’s system has no back-up sensors (unlike Brodie) and
therefore Liu has to tell users to avoid interference areas (unlike Brodie)
(col. 1, l. 56-col. 2, l. 35 and App. Br. 5). Appellant further explains that
Brodie is indifferent to interference regions because Brodie’s technique
works whether or not there is GPS data as evidenced by Brodie’s statement
of “[i]t is often desirable to maintain location information on objects such as
vehicles . . . where external interferences cause GPS signal outage” (App.
Br. 5 and col. 1, ll. 21-25).
The Examiner responds that Brodie’s statement of “[i]t is often
desirable to maintain location information on objects such as
vehicles . . . where external interferences cause GPS signal outage” is found
in the background portion of the disclosure and leads to the improvement by
Brodie of utilizing dead-reckoning sensors to propagate the GPS receiver’s
navigation state between measurement updates to reduce signal uncertainty

Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Brief
have not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

5
or noise (i.e., interference) (see col. 1, ll. 21-25; col. 4, ll. 8-16; and Ans. 9).
The Examiner concludes that Brodie is concerned with GPS interference,
and furthermore, signal interference, uncertainty, and noise are negative
effects on all communication systems which would be of concern to one
skilled in the art (Ans. 10).
The Examiner’s articulated motivation to modify Brodie with Liu is to
inform users of weak coverage areas that may be vulnerable to interference
(Ans. 3-4).
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred by modifying Brodie
with Liu to inform users of weak coverage areas that may be vulnerable to
interference?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Brodie teaches that prior art GPS-DR navigation systems either switch
between Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) and dead-reckoning (DR)
systems (i.e., col. 3, ll. 23-35 describing switched GPS-DR) or
combine both GPS and DR navigation solutions for output or display
(i.e., col. 3, ll. 36-48 describing filtered GPS-DR systems).
2. Brodie further teaches that GPS provides bounded accuracy, while
dead-reckoning sensors (i.e., dead-reckoning sensors constitute an
inertial system; col. 2, ll. 5-14) degrade with time (col. 1, ll. 56-57).
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

6
3. Brodie’s system includes a GPS receiver responsive to GPS signals
for periodically providing navigation state measurement updates to a
navigation processor (col. 3, ll. 64-67).
4. Brodie’s system further includes a dead-reckoning sensor responsive
to movement of the object for providing movement measurements to
the navigation processor (col. 3, l. 67-col. 4, l. 3).
5. Brodie’s navigation processor determines object navigation states
using the navigation state measurement updates and propagates the
object navigation states between measurement updates using the
movement measurements (col. 4, ll. 3-7).
6. Brodie teaches that by utilizing the dead-reckoning sensors to
propagate the GPS receiver’s navigation state between measurement
updates, this reduces the uncertainty or process noise associated with
advancing the state from one measurement epoch to the next (col. 4,
ll. 8-12).
7. Brodie’s Figure 6 indicates a GPS position fix prior to entering the
tunnel at 133 and GPS reacquisition at point 132 after exiting the
tunnel (note, there is more accuracy of measurement and also use of
GPS tracking in non-interference sections—before and after the
tunnel), and an offset indicated by dotted line 131 when there is GPS
interference and the dead-reckoning sensors provide the positioning
information (Fig. 6 and col. 10, ll. 42-67).
8. Brodie teaches that GPS is preferably used in non-interference regions
due to its accuracy as indicated by its use before and after the
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

7
interference tunnel structure, as well as close tracking to the map
Road/Tunnel as compared with the offset when the dead-reckoning
sensors are tracking the car’s position (Fig. 6 and col. 10, ll. 42-67).
9. Brodie teaches that updated navigation results are displayed to the
user (col. 9, ll. 54-56).
10. The Examiner’s finding that Liu teaches communication between a
server and the clients and sending updated server maps to clients
based on interference information gathered by users (col. 2, ll. 15-35;
Fig. 6; and col. 5, l. 54-col. 6, l. 26) is uncontested by Appellant.
11. Liu teaches that interference map updates are sent to the clients to
direct users to sites of superior communications reliability or warn
users that they are out of or about to leave a service area (col. 2, ll. 27-
30).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. Id. The Supreme Court,
quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that
“‘[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

8
obviousness.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1741 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s argument raises two questions. The first one is whether
Brodie’s system is indifferent to interference and the second is whether there
is a motivation to combine Brodie with Liu. We will answer these questions
in turn.
Brodie teaches that prior art GPS-DR navigation systems either switch
between Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) and dead-reckoning (DR)
systems or combine both GPS and DR navigation solutions for output or
display (Finding of Fact 1). Brodie further teaches that GPS provides
bounded accuracy, while dead-reckoning sensors degrade with time (Finding
of Fact 2). Recognizing these deficiencies, Brodie’s system includes “a GPS
receiver responsive to GPS signals for periodically providing navigation
state measurement updates to a navigation processor” (Finding of Fact 3)
(emphasis added). Brodie’s system further includes “a dead-reckoning
sensor responsive to movement of the object for providing movement
measurements to the navigation processor” (Finding of Fact 4) (emphasis
added). Brodie’s navigation processor “determines object navigation states
using the navigation state measurement updates and propagates the object
navigation states between measurement updates using the movement
measurements” (Finding of Fact 5). Brodie teaches that by utilizing the
dead-reckoning sensors to propagate the GPS receiver’s navigation state
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

9
between measurement updates, Brodie’s invention “reduces the uncertainty
or process noise,” associated with advancing the state from one
measurement epoch to the next (Finding of Fact 6) (emphasis added). Thus,
Brodie’s system heavily relies on GPS in non-interference regions to reduce
uncertainty or noise (Findings of Fact 1-6).
Furthermore, Brodie’s Figure 6 indicates a GPS position fix prior to
entering the tunnel at 133 and GPS reacquisition at point 132 after exiting
the tunnel (note, there is more accuracy of measurement and also use of GPS
tracking in non-interference sections—before and after the tunnel) and an
“offset” indicated by dotted line 131 when there is GPS interference and the
dead-reckoning sensors provide the positioning information (Finding of Fact
7) (emphasis added).
Thus, GPS is preferably used in non-interference regions due to its
accuracy as indicated by its use before and after the interference tunnel
structure, as well as close tracking to the map Road/Tunnel as compared
with the offset when the dead-reckoning sensors are tracking the car’s
position (Finding of Fact 7).
Consequently Brodie’s system is not indifferent to interference
regions as argued by Appellant because the system heavily relies on GPS to
reduce uncertainty or noise (Findings of Fact 1-6) and to provide more
accurate navigation (Finding of Fact 7), and thus, the use of the dead-
reckoning sensors do not substitute GPS navigation which is preferable for
its accuracy, but yet, affected by interference. Brodie’s statement of “[i]t is
often desirable to maintain location information on objects such as
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

10
vehicles . . . where external interferences cause GPS signal outage” does not
mean that the system is indifferent to interference as argued by Appellant,
but rather, that the system provides navigation through interference regions.
The question remains as to whether one skilled in the art would want
to know of upcoming interference regions while navigating with Brodie’s
system. Brodie teaches that updated navigation results are displayed to the
user (Finding of Fact 9). The Examiner’s finding that Liu teaches
communication between a server and its clients and sending updated server
maps to clients based on interference information gathered by users (Finding
of Fact 10) is uncontested by Appellant. Liu teaches that these updates are
sent to the clients to direct users to sites of superior communications
reliability (i.e., low interference) or warn users that they are out of or about
to leave a service area (i.e., high interference) (Finding of Fact 11). Thus, it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time that the
invention was made to include the updated interference maps of Liu in
Brodie’s navigation system. This warns the user of upcoming interference
regions (as taught by Liu) in order to either avoid them and primarily track
with GPS navigation, which is more accurate (as Brodie’s system is capable
of doing), or go through them but be aware that during those areas there is
an offset due to primarily dead-reckoning navigation (as Brodie’s system is
also capable of doing). This allows the user to place less reliance on the
displayed navigation guidance during primarily dead-reckoning navigation
by knowing that there is an offset through the interference regions (as taught
by Brodie).
Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

11
Thus, the Examiner’s articulated motivation of modifying Brodie with
Liu for “inform[ing] users of weak coverage area that may be vulnerable to
interference” (Ans. 4) constitutes a rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 19 or claims 20-39 which
fall with claim 19. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims.

CONCLUSION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred
by modifying Brodie with Liu to inform users of weak coverage areas that
may be vulnerable to interference. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19-39.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 19-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

Appeal 2009-1426
Application 10/293,771

12
babc

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LEGAL STAFF, MAIL CODE 482-C23-B21
300 RENAISSANCE CENTER
P. O. BOX 300
DETROIT, MI 48265-3000