Ex Parte Karaoguz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2010

10314279 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEYHAN KARAOGUZ
____________

Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: June 28, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is a method and apparatus for using
signal-generation location information to identify and authenticate devices
available in a wireless communication environment. The methods and
apparatus confirm a user’s identity based on distance range location
information and/or geographic position location information of the user’s
wireless device. (Spec.¶ [0002])
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of authenticating a user of a wireless device
within a wireless network, said method comprising the steps of:

receiving a request message from a sender to access a resource
provided through a wireless network;

determining first signal-generated location information of the
sender;

identifying the sender using the first signal-generated location
information;

confirming an identity of the sender; and

authorizing access for the sender to access the resource.

REFERENCES
Bellovin US 5,241,599 Aug. 31, 1993
MacDoran US 5,757,916 May 26, 1998
Sasuta US 6,134,446 Oct. 17, 2000
Overy US 6,961,541 B2 Nov. 1, 2005
Rehkopf US 7,027,821 B2 Apr. 11, 2006
Ray US 2003/0112977 A1 June 19, 2003
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 13, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Rehkopf and Sasuta.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 9, 14, 16, 21, 29, 31, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, and Ray.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 15, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, and Overy.
The Examiner rejected claims 5-8, 17-20, 22, 23, and 32-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, Ray, and
Overy.
The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, Ray, and Bellovin.
The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, Ray, Bellovin, and
MacDoran.
The Examiner rejected claims 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Rehkopf, Sasuta, Ray, Overy, Bellovin, and
MacDoran.
Appellant contends Rehkopf uses location information to identify a
particular communication area of a communication system in which a
subscriber unit is located and does not identify a sender using first signal-
generated location information as claimed (App. Br. 12, 14; Reply Br. 5).1
Further, Appellant contends, Sasuta identifies a particular communication
area of a communication system in which the subscriber unit is located

1 The amended Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2008, is referenced throughout
this opinion.
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

4
based on location information and does not cure the deficiencies of Rehkopf
(App. Br. 12).

ISSUE
Does the combination of Rehkopf and Sasuta teach and suggest
identifying a sender using first signal-generation location information?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In Rehkopf, an integration application receives a message
containing a service request and, optionally, location information, from a
wireless network, thus providing an interface between the wireless network
and application servers (col. 3, l. 64-col. 4, l. 3).
2. Rehkopf also discloses pagers can be used to access
applications on a server, such as an employee locator server (col. 8, ll. 66-
67).
3. Sasuta teaches a subscriber unit provides location information
to a mobility processor to identify a particular subscriber unit and a
communication area in which it is located (col. 8, ll. 25-27).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966)), reaffirmed principles
based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

5
The test for non-analogous art is first whether the art is within the
field of the inventor's endeavor and, if not, whether it is reasonably pertinent
to the problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 599 F.2d
1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979). A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even
though it may be in a different field of endeavor, it logically would have
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem
because of the matter with which it deals. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659
(Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Rehkopf teaches all the features of independent
claims 1, 13, and 28, except Rehkopf does not expressly mention
“identifying the sender using first signal-generated location information of
the sender” (Ans. 3). The Examiner finds Sasuta expressly teaches this
feature (Ans. 4, 19).
Appellant contends Rehkopf teaches providing location update
parameters to a subscriber unit. When the parameters indicate the subscriber
unit is to provide location information, it does so. Thus, the location
information identifies a particular communication area where the subscriber
unit is located. (App. Br. 12) Appellant further contends Sasuta does not
teach or suggest identifying the sender using first signal-generated location
information as claimed; rather, Sasuta teaches determining whether the
location information is consistent with location update parameters and not
for identifying the sender. Further, Sasuta does not teach or suggest
confirming the identity of the communication device and authorizing access
of the communication device to a resource. (App. Br. 12) Appellant also
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

6
contends the motivation to combine Rehkopf and Sasuta is misplaced as
Rehkopf provides services to a user of a wireless network and does not
suggest any difficulty or problem (App. Br. 14).
Appellant’s invention determines the location of a customer (sender),
either with respect to distance or geographically, and then uses that
information to identify location information of the sender (Spec. ¶ [0002]).
Rehkopf teaches all the steps of claim 1 except for explicitly identifying a
sender using the location data (FF 1; Ans. 18). Rehkopf, however, also
teaches the device can be used as an employee locator (FF 2). Sasuta
teaches location information identifies a particular subscriber unit (sender)
(FF 3). Thus, combining the teachings of Sasuta, which discloses the feature
of identifying the sender based on the location information, with Rehkopf to
additionally identify the sender using the location information, would be no
more than a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions (See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Remaining independent claims 13 and 28 rely on the same arguments
as those asserted for claim 1 (App. Br. 15-17). Thus, for the above reasons,
the combination of Rehkopf and Sasuta teaches and suggests Appellant’s
claimed invention.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 9, 14-16, 21, 29-31, and 36,
Appellant again relies on the arguments presented for claims 1, 13, and 28
(See App. Br. 17-34). Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the combination
of Rehkopf and Sasuta with Overy or Ray teaches and suggests the features
of these claims.
With respect to dependent claims 5-8, 17-20, 22, 23, and 32-35
Appellant relies on the arguments presented for claim 1 and asserts the
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

7
combination of Ray, and Overy would render Ray unsatisfactory for its
intended use (App. Br. 35). However, Appellant only states such is the case
without providing support for this assertion.
With respect to dependent claims 10 and 37, Appellant relies on the
arguments presented for claim 1 and asserts “there is no proper motivation to
combine” the references (App. Br. 56). However, Appellant provides no
additional substantive arguments to support this position (see App. Br. 54-
58).
With respect to dependent claims 11, 12, 38, and 39, Appellant relies
on the arguments presented for claim 1, but provides no additional
arguments other than asserting, without providing support, the Examiner is
using hindsight reconstruction (App. Br. 59-64).
With respect to claims 24-27, Appellant relies on the arguments
presented for claim 1, and provides no additional arguments (App.Br. 64-
67).
In light of the above, and the Examiner’s findings regarding these
dependent claims, which we adopt, claims 2-12, 14-27, and 29-39, are
obvious over the collective teachings of the cited prior art.

CONCLUSION
The combination of Rehkopf and Sasuta teaches and suggests
identifying a sender using first signal-generation location information as
claimed.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-39 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-005624
Application 10/314,279

8
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

KIS

MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661