Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2016

12964573 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 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.
12/964,573 12/09/2010 Jie Liu 331234-US-NP 5006
69316 7590 12/09/2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
MCGUE, FRANK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2016 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIE LIU, NISSANKA ARACHCHIGE BODHI
PRIYANTHA, and HEITOR SOARES RAMOS FILHO
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jie Liu et al. (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Action rejecting claims 1—20.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants submit the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention is directed to “techniques for implementing
low-energy GPS on a mobile device.” Spec. 12. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
1. A method comprising:
activating, at a first point in time, a global positioning
system (GPS) module configured to receive GPS signals;
receiving, from the GPS module and at a mobile device, a
sub-millisecond pseudo-range estimate based on GPS signals
received, and a time at which the GPS signals are received by the
GPS module corresponding to a time stamp provided at the
mobile device;
deactivating, at a second point in time, the GPS module
after receiving the sub-millisecond pseudo-range estimate, the
second point in time occurring after the time indicated by the
time stamp;
transmitting, at the mobile device, both the sub­
millisecond pseudo-range estimate and the time stamp in one or
more data packets to a remote entity while the GPS module is
inactive; and
receiving, from the remote entity, location information
based on the sub-millisecond pseudo-range estimate and the time
stamp.
REJECTIONS
1) Claims 1—3, 6—8, and 16—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over van Diggelen (US 2005/0206559 Al, pub.
2
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
Sept. 22, 2005), Grossnickle (US 2010/0302099 Al, pub. Dec. 2,
2010), and Krasner ’338 (US 6,104,338, iss. Aug. 15, 2000).
2) Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over van Diggelen, Grossnickle, and Sheynblat (US
2008/0032706 Al, pub. Feb. 7, 2008).
3) Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
van Diggelen, Grossnickle, and Barnard (US 5,119,102, iss. June
2, 1992).
4) Claims 10 and 12—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over van Diggelen, Krasner ’338, and Nelson (US
4,639,680, iss. Jan. 27, 1987).
5) Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
van Diggelen, Krasner ’338, Nelson, and Sheynblat.
6) Claims 16—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Krasner ’914 (US 5,874,914, iss. Feb. 23, 1999).
7) Claims 1—3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Krasner ’914 and Krasner ’338.
8) Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Krasner ’914, Krasner ’338, and Sheynblat.
9) Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Krasner ’914 and van Diggelen.
10) Claims 10 and 12—15 are rejected as unpatentable over Krasner,
’914, Krasner ’338, and van Diggelen.
11) Claim 11 is rejected as unpatentable over Krasner ’914, van
Diggelen, and Sheynblat.
3
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1
a) Claims 1—3, 6—8
The Examiner finds that van Diggelen discloses the limitations of
claim 1 except for activating and deactivating a GPS module and
transmitting data in the form of data packets. Non-Final Act. 3—A. The
Examiner finds that Grossnickle discloses activating a GPS module at a first
point in time and deactivating the GPS module at a second point in time and
reasons it would have been obvious “to modify van Diggelen by activating
and deactivating the GPS module as taught by Grossnickle et al. in order to
conserve power.” Id. The Examiner finds that Krasner ’338 discloses “the
use of data packets to transmit data to a remote server” and concludes it
would have been obvious to modify van Diggelen et al. by using data
packets as taught in Krasner in order to split up the transmission if needed.”
Id. at 4.
Appellants contend that van Diggelen does not disclose “deactivating
a GPS module or of transmitting data while a GPS module is inactive.”
Appeal Br. 12. Appellants also contend that Grossnickle does not disclose
“transmitting a sub-millisecond pseudo-range estimate and a time stamp
while the GPS module is inactiveId. at 12—13. Appellants also contend
that the combination of van Diggelen and Grossnickle is improper because
the stated rationale for the combination, to conserve power, is impermissibly
based on hindsight. Id. at 13. The Examiner responds that van Diggelen
discloses the recited form of data transmission, i.e., sub-millisecond pseudo­
range estimate and a time stamp, while Grossnickle is cited “for turning on,
4
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
collecting data and then turning off a GPS module and then transmitting
data.” Ans. 16. The Examiner also responds that the rationale for the
combination of Grossnickle and van Diggelen is not based on impermissible
hindsight because Grossnickle discloses a GPS system ‘“with minimized
power consumption. Id. at 16—17 (citing Grossnickle, Abstract). For the
following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that van Diggelen
discloses transmitting sub-millisecond pseudo range estimates and a time
stamp. Appeal Br. 12. Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Grossnickle discloses activating a GPS module at a first point in
time, deactivating the GPS module at a second point in time, and
transmitting data while the GPS module is inactive. Id. at 12—13.
Appellants’ contentions concerning van Diggelen’s failure to disclose
transmitting the recited forms of data while the GPS is inactive and
Grossnickle’s failure to disclose transmission of the recited forms of data
amount to an attack on each reference individually while the rejection is
based on the combined teachings of van Diggelen and Grossnickle.
Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive because one cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is
based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s cited rationale for
the combination of van Diggelen and Grossnickle, to conserve power, is
impermissibly based on hindsight is also not persuasive because Grossnickle
discloses that its system minimizes power consumption. See Grossnickle,
Abstract.
5
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
Appellants, thus, fail to persuasively apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s factual findings or rationale, quoted above, for the combination
of van Diggelen and Grossnickle, which we determine to be reasonable and
supported by rational underpinnings. See KSR Int 7 Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.”); In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 702 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants do not argue separately for the patentability of claims 2, 3, and
6—8 which depend from claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. We sustain the rejection of
claims 2, 3, and 6—8 for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
h) Claims 16—20
The Examiner finds that van Diggelen discloses the limitations of
claim 16 except for duty-cycling a GPS module. Non-Final Act. 5—6. The
Examiner finds that Grossnickle discloses duty cycling a GPS module as
recited in claim 16 and concludes it would have been obvious “to modify
van Diggelen by using a duty cycle as taught in Grossnickle et al. in order to
conserve power.” Id. at 6.
Similar to claim 1, Appellants contend that van Diggelen does not
disclose “deactivating a GPS module or of transmitting data during an
inactive portion of a GPS module’s duty cycle.” Appeal Br. 16. Appellants
also contend that Grossnickle does not disclose “transmitting sub­
millisecond pseudo-range estimates and a corresponding time stamp during
an inactive portion of a GPS module’s duty cycle.’ '’ Id. at 17. For the
following reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 16.
6
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
As with claim 1, Appellants’ contentions concerning the disclosures
of van Diggelen and Grossnickle amount to attacking each reference
individually while the rejection is based on the combined teachings of van
Diggelen and Grossnickle. These contentions are not persuasive because
one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when
the rejection is based on a combination of references. Appellants fail to
persuasively apprise us of error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
rationale, quoted above, for the combination of van Diggelen and
Grossnickle, which we determine to be reasonable and supported by rational
underpinnings. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claim 16. Appellants do
not argue separately for the patentability of claims 17—20, which depend
from claim 16. Appeal Br. 18. We sustain the rejection of claims 17—20 for
the same reasons as stated above for claim 16.
Rejections 2 and 3
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 9 as unpatentable over van
Diggelen, and Grossnickle as applied to claims 3 and 12, and Sheynblat.
Non-Final Act. 7. Claims 4 and 9 depend ultimately from claim 1. Appeal
Br. 24, 25 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Sheynblat discloses
“average pseudo-range estimates to produce an average pseudo-range
estimate which are then transmitted” as recited in claim 4 and using the “free
2The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 is based on the combination of
van Diggelan, Grossnickle, and Krasner‘338. Final Act. 3. The failure to
specifically cite to Krasner ‘338 in rejection 2 is a manifest clerical error.
Appellants do not contend that the failure to specifically cite to Krasner ‘338
in the rejection of claims 4 and 9 is a basis for reversing the rejection.
Appeal Br. 14.
7
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
space of a data packet to transmit data” as recited in claim 9. Non-Final Act.
7 (citation omitted). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings
concerning the disclosure of Sheynblat but argue that the cited disclosure in
Sheynblat fails to cure the alleged deficiencies in the combination of van
Diggelen and Grossnickle. Appeal Br. 15. We determined above that
Appellants’ contentions concerning the combination of van Diggelen,
Grossnickle, and Krasner ‘338 in connection with the rejection of claim 1
are not persuasive. We, thus, sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 9 for the
same reasons stated above for claim 1.
The Examiner rejects claim 5 as unpatentable over van Diggelen and
Grossnickle, as applied to claim 3,3 and Barnard. Non-Final Act. 7. Claim 5
ultimately depends from claim 1. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). The
Examiner finds that Barnard discloses “the transmission of PRN codes
associated with the submillisecond pseudorange estimates” as recited in
claim 5. Non-Final Act. 7. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
findings concerning the disclosure of Barnard but argue that the cited
disclosure of Barnard fails to cure the alleged deficiencies in the
combination of van Diggelen and Grossnickle. Appeal Br. 16. We
determined above that Appellants’ contentions concerning the combination
of van Diggelen, Grossnickle, and Krasner ‘338 in connection with the
3 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 is based on the combination of van
Diggelan, Grossnickle, and Krasner‘338. Final Act. 3. The failure to
specifically cite to Krasner ‘338 in rejection 3 is a manifest clerical error.
Appellants do not contend that the failure to specifically cite to Krasner ‘338
in the rejection of claim 5 is a basis for reversing the rejection. Appeal Br.
15-16.
8
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive. We, thus, sustain the rejection of
claim 5 for the same reasons stated above for claim 1.
Rejection 4
The Examiner finds that van Diggelen discloses the limitations of
claim 10 except for “receiving from the remote entity in one or more data
packets” and “receiving the data packets based on a minimum update
frequency which indicates a period of time to duty cycle a GPS module.”
Non-Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that Krasner ’338 discloses “sending
data packets between entities” and reasons it would have been obvious to
“modify van Diggelen by using the data packets of Krasner [’338] as such
are well-known protocols in the art.” Id. The Examiner finds that Nelson
discloses “receiving data packets based on a minimum update frequency
which indicates a period of time to duty cycle a GPS module” and concludes
it would have been obvious to “modify van Diggelen by using the minimum
update frequency as described in Nelson in order to save power.” Id.
Appellants contend that Nelson does not disclose “one or more data
packets from a remote entity that correspond to a minimum update
frequency of location information.” Appeal Br. 19. Appellants argue
Nelson only discloses “a detector input signal [that] possesses a multiplicity
of pulses having duty cycles.” Id. (citing Nelson, col. 5,11. 31—34).
Appellants also argue that:
Although a minimum update frequency of location information may
indicate a period of time for a remote entity to duty cycle a GPS module,
a duty cycle is not a minimum update frequency of location
information. The cited portions of Nelson also discuss updated
frequency information (Nelson col. 6, 11. 55-60). Updated frequency
information, however, does not correspond to location information.
Id. at 19—20.
9
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
The Examiner responds that Nelson
does recite received (GPS) signals which constitute a repetitive signal
comprising a multiplicity of pulses (data packets) (col. 5, lines 30-36).
The duty cycles are based upon the difference between the received
signal and a reference signal (col. 5, 11. 32-38). The minimum update
frequency is set by the phase offsets between the received signal and
reference signal (col. 5,11. 42-48).
Ans. 17.
Appellants have the better argument concerning Nelson. Claim 10
recites “the minimum update frequency of the location information
indicating a period of time for the remote entity to duty cycle a GPS
module.” Nelson discloses “a multiplicity of pulses having duty cycles that
vary.” Nelson, col. 5,1. 32—33. However, the Examiner has not directed us
to any disclosure in Nelson of a “minimum update frequency of location
information indicating a period of time for the remote entity to duty cycle a
GPS module” as recited in claim 10. The Examiner’s finding that this
limitation reads on the cited portion of Nelson is, thus, not supported by the
disclosure in Nelson. As the rejection of claim 10 is based on an erroneous
factual finding, the conclusion of obviousness cannot stand. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We do not sustain the rejection
of claim 10 and claims 12—15 which depend from claim 10.
Rejection 5
The Examiner rejects claim 11 as unpatentable over van Diggelen,
Krasner ’338, Nelson, and Sheynblat. Non-Final Act. 9. Claim 11 depends
from claim 10. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner does not cite
Sheynblat to cure the deficiencies in the combination of van Diggelen,
Krasner ’338, and Nelson noted above in connection with the rejection of
10
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
claim 10. Non-Final Act. 9. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 11.
Rejections 6, 7, 8, and 9
Rejections 6, 7, 8, and 9 are directed to claims 1—9 and 16—20, and are
new grounds of rejection issued for the first time in the Answer. We affirm
the rejections of these claims on other grounds, i.e., those set forth in
rejections 1, 2, and 3 above. Therefore, we do not reach the question of the
propriety of rejections 6, 7, 8, and 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (a)(1).
Rejection 10
In the Answer, the Examiner also issued a new ground of rejection of
claims 10 and 12—15. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that Krasner ’914
discloses the limitations of claim 10 except the use of data packets to
transmit data and receiving information relating to an approximate location
of the remote entity. Id. at 14. The Examiner finds that Krasner ’338
discloses the use of data packets to transmit data to a remote server and
reasons it would have been obvious to “modify Krasner [’]914 by using data
packets as taught by Krasner [’]338 in order to split up the transmission as
needed.” Id. The Examiner finds that van Diggelen discloses receiving
information relating to an approximate location of the remote entity and
concludes it would have been obvious to “modify Krasner [’]914 and
Krasner [’]338 by providing approximate location information as taught by
van Diggelen et al. in order to provide a reasonable starting point for
determination of the actual location.” Id. at 14—15.
Appellants contend that the Examiner made no findings regarding the
limitation in claim 10 of “transmitting the location information to the remote
entity based on the determined position.” Reply Br. 18. Appellants’
11
Appeal 2015-001411
Application 12/964,573
contention is persuasive. See Ans. at 14—15. The rejection lacks a complete
factual basis and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10. Claims 12—15
all depend ultimately from claim 10 and thus, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 12—15 for the same reason as for claim 10.
Rejection 11
The Examiner rejects claim 11 as unpatentable over Krasner ’914, and
van Diggelen as applied to claim 10,4 and Sheynblat. Ans. 15. Claim 11
depends from claim 10. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner does
not cite to Sheynblat to cure the deficiency in the combination of Krasner
’914 and van Diggelen noted above in connection with the rejection of claim
10. Ans. 15—16. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9 and 16—20 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10—15 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
4 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 is based on the combination of van
Diggelan, Grossnickle, and Krasner ‘338. Ans. 14. The failure to
specifically cite to Krasner ‘338 in rejection 11 is a manifest clerical error.
12