Ex Parte Hoffmann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2018

13911538 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/911,538 06/06/2013
48058 7590 09/24/2018
GA TES & COOPER LLP - Boeing
HOW ARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ceilidh Hoffmann
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13-0550-US-NP 4249
EXAMINER
BANTHRONGSACK, JEFF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CEILIDH HOFFMANN
(Applicant: The Boeing Company)
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, and 18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 16, 19, and 20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 References herein to "Appellant" are to the applicant, The Boeing
Company, also identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to wireless networking scheme in which the
contextual location of devices is determined by measuring the range of each
device from one or more source locations, as well as the range of each
device to the other devices. The method includes conflict resolution which
addresses situations in which devices are mistakenly identified as having the
same contextual position. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for configuring a plurality of nodes
communicatively coupled by a wireless network, the method
compnsmg:
selecting, by each of a first set of the nodes, one of a
plurality of selectable predetermined locations of a defined
volume or space for the first set of nodes, wherein the selectable
predefined contextual locations comprise mutually exclusive
physical locations of the first set of nodes, and wherein the
selectable predefined contextual locations are selected by the
nodes based at least in part on measured ranges to a second set
of the nodes, the nodes of the second set having known locations
so that the selectable predetermined locations can be selected
based on the measured ranges to the known locations, wherein
the selection is self-performed by each of the nodes of the first
set;
broadcasting, via the wireless network and by each node
of the first set, the selected locations and measured ranges to
other nodes of the first set;
based on the broadcasted selected locations, determining,
by the nodes of the first set, that the selected predetermined
locations for the first set of nodes contains at least one error
associated with selection of the predetermined locations; and
updating the selected predetermined locations of the first
set of nodes based at least in part on the broadcasted selected
locations.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cristian et al. ("Cristian") US 2010/0014443 Al Jan. 21, 2010
Tsai et al. ("Tsai") US 2011/0312279 Al Dec. 22, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsai and Cristian. Final Act. 7-17. 2
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Tsai teaches or suggests the
"selecting" limitation of claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over Tsai and Cristian-
relying primarily on Tsai. Final Act. 7-17. Relevant here, the Examiner
finds Tsai teaches the "selecting" limitation because Tsai "discloses
selecting a distance or range or changes between a mobile device and one or
more wireless devices serving as reference nodes, based at least in part, on
one or more RF links established between the mobile devices (i.e., a first set
of nodes) and one or more reference nodes (i.e., a second set of node)".
Final Act. 4 ( citing Tsai ,r 17).
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because Tsai does not teach
various aspects of the "selecting" limitation of claim 1. App. Br. 8-10. In
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph. Ans. 14.
3
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538
particular, Appellant argues Tsai does not teach selecting "one of a plurality
of selectable predetermined locations of a defined volume or space for the
first set of nodes" because Tsai "stops short of any teaching or suggestion of
predefined contextual locations of a defined volume or space for a set of
nodes." App. Br. 9. Instead, Appellant argues, Tsai "merely describes
distance ranging based on RF links" and provides no teaching with respect
to "predefined contextual locations of a defined volume or space" or
contextual locations "that are possible mutually exclusive physical locations
of the first set of nodes in this defined space or volume." App. Br. 9.
According to Appellant, Tsai's distance ranging is performed "to measure
relative motion of devices and users." Id. We agree with Appellant.
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to determining contextual
location information for devices in a mesh network. Spec. ,r 20. For
example, in the context of an aircraft, the contextual location information
may be "the first aisle seat on the left." Id. Tsai, in contrast, relates to
differentiating global and local motion in the use of motion-based
applications on mobile devices. Tsai ,r 7. In particular, it relates to
"apparatuses that may implement effective and/or efficient local motion
sensing regardless of whether a user remains stationary, walking, being on
board of accelerating and/or decelerating vehicles, etc. for more satisfying
user experience." Tsai ,r 7.
The "selecting" step of Appellant's claims requires the presence of a
"first set of nodes," a "second set of nodes," and "a plurality of selectable
predetermined locations of a defined volume or space for the first set of
nodes." App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds that Tsai's
handheld device (100), as shown in Figs. 2A-2C, corresponds to the recited
4
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538
"first set of nodes." The Examiner also finds the wireless headset (202, 206,
208) depicted in Figs. 2A-2C corresponds to the recited "second set of
nodes." The Examiner finds the moving vehicle depicted in Tsai's Figs. 2B
and 2C corresponds to the recited "plurality of selectable predetermined
locations of a defined volume or space for the first set of nodes," explaining
that "[t]here are multiple vehicle(s) in the environment and user(s) with a
pair of headphones being on board of accelerating/decelerating vehicles."
Ans. 15.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently
explained how Tsai teaches the argued limitations. For example, the
Examiner has not explained, nor do we discern, any basis for the finding that
"[t]here are multiple vehicles in the environment," which forms the basis of
the determination that Tsai teaches "a plurality of selectable predetermined
locations of a defined volume or space for the first set of nodes." Rather,
Tsai describes detecting the presence of a single device (100) having a single
user with headphones (206) in a single vehicle and ignoring vehicular
motion (112 ') to improve the performance of a motion-based application
106. Tsai ,r 30. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in
determining Tsai teaches or suggests the disputed limitation, and we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we also
do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 15 and 18 which recite
similar limitations, nor of the remaining claims which depend therefrom.
DECISION
5
Appeal2018-002892
Application 13/911,538
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-15, 17, and
18.
REVERSED
6