Ex Parte Irvin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2002

08838027 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte DAVID R. IRVIN, RAJARAM RAMESH
and KARL MOLNAR
__________
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before KRASS, FLEMING, and LALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 26.
The invention relates to a positioning system that improves
positioning accuracy by measuring and pre-storing signal delays
associated with positioning radio receivers. See Appellants’
Specification Page 4, lines 8-11. Positioning accuracy is
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
2
improved by measuring and pre-storing signal delays associated
with one or more stages of positioning radio receivers. See
Appellants’ Specification Page 8, lines 29-32.
Independent Claim 1 present in the application is reproduced
as follows:
1. An apparatus for locating a mobile unit using a plurality of
positioning radio receivers, comprising:
a detector that detects a received radio signal from the
mobile unit at a corresponding positioning radio receiver;
a timing device that determines a detection time associated
with the received signal;
a storage device that stores a signal delay associated with
one or more receiver stages of the corresponding positioning
radio receiver; and
a processor that determines a time-of-arrival for the
received radio signal based on the detection time and the signal
delay, and
a mobile unit locator that processes time-of-arrivals at the
plurality of positioning radio receivers to determine the
position of the mobile unit.
References
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Drebinger et al. 3,848,254 Nov. 12, 1974
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 11, 1999. We will
refer to this appeal brief as simply the Brief. Appellants filed
a Reply Brief on August 11, 1999. We will refer to this reply
brief as Reply Brief.
2The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner’s
answer dated June 24, 1999. We will refer to the Examiner’s
answer as simply the Answer.
3
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
allowed. Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellants or
the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs1 and the answer2
for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the record before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 26 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Thus, we will reverse the rejection of these claims for
the reasons set forth infra.
Appellants argue that Drebinger does not teach every element
of the claimed invention. Specifically, Appellants argue that
rather than storing signal delay associated with one or more
receiver stages of the corresponding positioning radio receivers,
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
4
the stored values disclosed by Drebinger relate to a relative
value delays between two receivers. See Brief, page 3, lines 2-5
and page 4, lines 9-10.
The Examiner, in reference to Drebinger’s Figure 5, argues
that Drebinger teaches a stored correction value (k = tf2 - tf1)
that is a function of tf2 and tf1, which are transit time delays
in the receiving station and in the lines or cables. See Answer,
page 5, lines 2-4. The Examiner argues that the value of k is
associated with a corresponding receiver stage delay since it is
a function of both the transit time delays associated with both
receivers. See Answer, page 5, lines 5-6.
Anticipation requires that each and every element of the
claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.
See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir.
1986) and Lindermann Mashinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We find that Drebinger does not teach the limitation of
storing a “signal delay associated with one or more receiver
stages of the corresponding positioning radio receiver,” as being
claimed by the Appellants. Appellants refer to signal delay
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
5
associated with the receiver stages included in a positioning
radio receiver. See Appellants’ Specification page 6, lines 30-
32. Signal delay of the received signal includes both a
transmission-line delay and a group-delay introduced by a filter
included in one of the receiver stages. See Appellants’
Specification page 7, lines 10-12. Drebinger teaches a
correction memory KOR which stores a correction value k that
compensates for transit time fluctuations in the evaluation and
transmission devices. See Drebinger’s Specification column 9,
lines 39-42. The correction value k is equal to a difference
between tf1 and tf2, where tf1 is the transit time delay in the
receiving station and in the transmission lines of a first
receiving station, and tf2 is the transit time delay in the
receiving station and in the transmission lines of a second
receiving station. See Drebinger’s Specification column 10,
lines 27-29.
We note that Drebinger’s pre-stored correction value k
corresponds to a relative difference of transit time delays
between two receivers. We find that the pre-stored correction
value k is not “signal delay associated with one or more receiver
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
6
stages of the corresponding positioning radio receiver”, since it
is associated with one or more receiver stages of two positioning
radio receivers.
Upon a careful review of the record, we fail to find that
Drebinger teaches the limitation requiring storing “a signal
delay associated with one or more receiver stages of the
corresponding positioning radio receiver,” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 1. Therefore, we find that Drebinger fails to
teach all of the limitations of claim 1, and, therefore, the
claims 1-26 are not anticipated by Drebinger.
The Examiner also makes a rejection of claims 1 through 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, the Examiner states:
The storage of the correction information at the main
office, or alternatively, at the individual receiving
stations is suggested and/or is obvious to the skilled
artisan in view of the intent to make more accurate time
measurements by compensating for receiver transit time
delays.
See Answer Page 4, lines 12-15.
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting prima
facie case of unpatentability. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1143, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is the burden of
the Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to the claimed invention by the
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
7
reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the prior art. In
re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified to reflect
features of the claimed invention does not make the modification,
and hence the claimed invention, obvious unless desirability of
such modification is suggested by prior art. In re Fritch 972
F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992)
We find that the Examiner has not met the burden of
establishing why one having ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to the claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or
suggestions found in Drebinger. The Examiner has not provided a
convincing line of reasoning for modifying Drebinger that can
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 26 under
U.S.C. §103.
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
8
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 26 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:pgg
Appeal No. 2000-0672
Application 08/838,027
9
Ronald L. Grudziecki
Burns Doane Swecker & Mathis
P.O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404