Ex Parte Lowndes

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13747663 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
13/747,663 01/23/2013 TIMOTHY A. LOWNDES MPCS-31427 4695
25883 7590 06/26/2017
HOWISON & ARNOTT, L.L.P
P.O. BOX 741715
DALLAS, TX 75374-1715
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
patents @ dalpat.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY A. LOWNDES
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,6631
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, SHARON FENICK, 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—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27—30. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to plotting of cell towers and call data records
on a map to provide a graphical representation of the towers and associated
1 Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) identifies the real party in interest as
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Br. 6.
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
sectors. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with argued limitations in
italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium
containing a set of instructions for a general purpose computer,
wherein execution of the set of instructions by the general
purpose computer configures the general purpose computer to:
determine a position of at least one cell tower on a
map responsive to data indicating a position of the cell
tower;
determine boundaries associated with a plurality of
sectors associated with the at least one cell tower
responsive to an azimuth associated with each of the
plurality of sectors;
receive network based historical call data record
data generated by a cellular network describing historical
information with respect to at least one historical call
event, the historical call record data originating from a
cellular handset usage activity comprising at least one of
general packet radio service (GPRS) data, or call detail
records (CDR);
determine historical call information related to the
at least one historical call event responsive to the at least
one network based historical call data record data
generated by the cellular network relating to the cellular
handset usage activity related to the historical call event;
generate a plot of the map including the at least one
cell tower and the boundaries associated with the plurality
of sectors associated with the at least one cell tower
marked on the map and the plot of the map further
including the historical call information of the at least one
historical call event located on the map.
App. Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27—30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Culpepper (US
2011/0156901 Al, published June 30, 2011) and Hazzani (US
2011/0069172 Al, published May 24, 2011). Final Act. 5.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited combination
teaches or suggests “at least one of general packet radio service (GPRS)
data, or call detail records (CDR),” and “the plot of the map further
including the historical call information of the at least one historical call
event located on the map,” as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Culpepper and
Hazzani are properly combinable?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Appellant contends the cited combination does not teach or suggest
“at least one of general packet radio service (GPRS) data, or call detail
records (CDR),” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Hazzani,
finding that it teaches the use of call detail records (CDRs) and
corresponding locations in a CDR/location database. Final Act. 3^4 (citing
Hazzani 136).
Appellant argues although “the Hazzani reference describes GPRS
data and CDR data, it does not disclose determining historical call
information from the GPRS data or CDR data and then plotting on a map the
3
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
determined historical call information that has been generated from the
GPRS data or CDR data.” Br. 24. According to Appellant, “the . . . fact that
there is a disclosure of GPRS data and CDR data within the Hazzani
reference and that there is a disclosure of the generation of a map showing a
current call location does not inherently tie the displayed current call
location to the previously discussed GPRS data and CDR data.” Id. at 24—
25.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Appellant does not
dispute that Hazzani teaches the recited call detail records. Id. at 24
(“Hazzani reference describes . . . CDR data”). Rather, Appellant disputes
that those call detail records are used as “historical call data” and included
on the plot of the map. We disagree. Hazzani teaches that “PSAP 36 stores
Call Detail Records (CDRs) of emergency calls and the corresponding
locations in a CDR/location database 84.” Hazzani 136. Thus, Hazzani
teaches storing CDRs in a database. Because the stored CDRs persist in the
database after each call has been completed, we agree with the Examiner
that the stored CDRs are historical call data. We also are persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that Hazzani’s teachings are limited to plotting
current call locations and not historical call data, because non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the combined teachings the references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, it is Culpepper,
and not Hazzani, that is relied upon for plotting the map. Ans. 33. As the
Examiner explains, “Hazzani is referenced in order to modify the teachings
of the Culpepper reference, including the cell tower plotting.” Ans. 33.
Thus, Culpepper teaches generating a plot of a map that includes cell towers
4
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
and sectors, while Hazzani shows that it was known to store historical call
information in CDRs. It is these combined teachings that render the claim
obvious. Because Appellant’s arguments attack Hazzani individually, and
because the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Culpepper and
Hazzani, we are not persuaded of error.
Second Issue
In setting forth the proposed combination, the Examiner finds each of
Culpepper and Hazzani are analogous art to the claimed invention, as each
relates to tracking call location. Ans. 28 (citing Culpepper, Abstract;
Hazzani 122). Hazzani, in particular, teaches using call detail records to
store historical call data and call locations. The Examiner further finds
Hazzani provides a specific suggestion to combine its teachings with those
of Culpepper because it teaches the use of a point of interest recognition
process in a PSAP which provides greater location accuracy. Ans. 29 (citing
Hazzani 136).
Appellant contends the Examiner has failed to provide a sufficient
motivation to combine the references because “[tjhere [has] only been
provided a conclusory statement that one could perform the recited
combination without any discussion of why such a combination would be
suggested from the disclosure of each of the references.” Br. 22. More
specifically, Appellant argues:
In this case, the Examiner has stated that it was obvious to
modify a reference to show a limitation in order to achieve a
particular goal. However there is no discussion as to whether this
goal is suggested by either of the references but is merely a
means to insert the limitation into a reference based on the
blueprint established by Applicant’s claim language and not by
the teaching of the references being utilized.
5
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
Br. 22. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
In KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme
Court reaffirmed that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with
each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields
no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination
is obvious.” Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273
(1976)). Here, the Examiner finds that Culpepper generally teaches that it
was known to generate a plot of a map which includes the location of cell
towers and cell sector boundaries. Final Act. 7; Ans. 33 (citing Culpepper
H 69, 99). The Examiner further finds that Hazzani shows it was known to
map call data, and to capture historical call data, including location
information, in call detail records. Final Act. 8. In the proposed
combination, the use of Culpepper’s plotting function and Hazzani’s CDR
database amount to nothing “more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co., 550. U.S.
at 417.
Moreover, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner has pointed
to a specific motivation found in Hazzani that would have led a skilled
artisan to combine its teachings with those of Culpepper. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Culpepper and Hazzani are analogous art because both
address the same general problem of tracking the location of devices
engaging in wireless communication. We agree with this finding. The
Examiner further identifies a specific teaching in Hazzani, namely that
location can be established with greater accuracy using collected point of
interest information (Hazzani 136), that would have prompted a skilled
artisan to supplement the teachings of Culpepper with those of Hazzani, as
6
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
Culpepper could benefit from improved location accuracy. As such, we are
not persuaded the Examiner has failed to provide “some articulated reason
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness,” KSR Int’l Co., 550. U.S. at 417, and we find the Examiner has
provided a sufficient rationale to support the combination.
Summary
Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Culpepper and
Hazzani. For the same reason, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding independent claims 8 and 15 obvious, as Appellant presents
substantially the same arguments for patentability as to those claims. The
remaining claims depend from one of independent claims 1,8, and 15.
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of those claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claims each fall together with their respective
independent claims.2
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—10, 13—17, 20—22, 24, 25,
and 27—30 is affirmed.
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether or not the claims are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101 in
light of recent subject matter eligibility decisions. See, e.g., Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v.
CLS Bank Inf 1, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).
7
Appeal 2017-000788
Application 13/747,663
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
8