Ex Parte Mckay

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 9, 2002

09271232 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 9, 2002)

1 Although claim 5 depends from canceled claim 4, the examiner indicated (answer, page
2) that “the dependency of claim 5 will be assumed to be on claim 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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NICOLAS D. MCKAY JR.
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
____________
BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1 through 3, 51, 6 and 8.
The disclosed invention relates to an object locating system that uses a GPS satellite system
and a two-way satellite communications system.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as follows:
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
2
1. For use in conjunction with a GPS satellite system and a two way satellite
communication system, an object locating system comprising:
a mobile unit physically connected to the object to be located, said mobile unit comprising
a satellite communication transceiver capable of receiving and transmitting encoded
signals,
decoding means associated with said satellite communication transceiver for
decoding a unique signal associated with said mobile unit and for generating an activation signal
upon receipt of said unique signal,
a GPS receiver,
means for activating said GPS receiver in response to said activation signal so that said GPS
receiver generates a current position signal representative of the position of said mobile unit, and

means for connecting said current position signal as an input signal to said satellite
communication transceiver so that said satellite communication transceiver transmits said position
signal, wherein said connecting means comprises means for storing a position signal, means for
comparing the current position signal with a previously stored position signal, means for generating
a difference signal representative thereof and for connecting said current position signal as an input
signal to said satellite communication transceiver only when said difference signal exceeds a preset
threshold, and means for storing the current position signal as said previously stored position signal,
and
a base station comprising
means for selectively transmitting said unique signal to said communications satellite,
means for receiving said position signal from said satellite communication transceiver, and
means for creating a display representative of the location of said mobile unit.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Kojima et al. (Kojima) 5,754,136 May 19, 1998
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
3
Tognazzini 5,914,675 June 22, 1999
(filed May 23, 1996)
Bouliane 2,133,673 Apr. 6, 1996
(Canadian Patent Application)
Claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bouliane in view of Kojima and Tognazzini.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 12) and the answer (paper number 13) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 8.
The primary reference to Bouliane discloses a vehicle emergency signal transmission system
that is presumably connected to the vehicle’s electrical system for continuous operation. Appellant
and the examiner both agree that GPS position data is continuously provided by the vehicle
computer to the base computer (brief, page 6; answer, page 4). Notwithstanding the continuous
transmission of position data, the continuous transmission mode can be overridden with a call from
the base computer to the vehicle computer for current GPS data (page 11).
We agree with the examiner (answer, page 4), that “Kojima et al teach the conventionality of
reducing power consumption in a GPS receiver by ID activation only when it is necessary to
determine a position for transmission to the base station in a GPS-based wireless, emergency
location system (Figure 2).” On the other hand, we agree with appellant’s arguments (brief, pages 5
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
4
and 6) that Bouliane is not concerned with conserving battery power because the emergency system
is connected to the vehicle’s electrical system, and would not be concerned with only transmitting to
the base computer “where the person has moved outside a preset perimeter and only after receipt of
the interrogation signal” to save battery power.
We likewise agree with the examiner (answer, page 4) that “Tognazzini teach[es] a locator
which integrates a GPS receiver with a wireless transceiver wherein a previously stored GPS
position is compared with a current GPS position to determine if the device has moved a
predetermined threshold distance, and if so, updates the memory with the new position as well as
wirelessly communicates the position information to a remote site (col. 7, lines 19-41).” Although
Tognazzini does in fact compare previously stored GPS data with current GPS data, the only action
taken in response to the comparison is to update the memory 38a with the new GPS data. In
Tognazzini, the comparison of GPS data is not performed in response to an interrogation signal, and
the noted wireless transmission of the GPS data is not done in response to the update of GPS data.
Thus, Tognazzini, like Bouliane and Kojima, is not concerned with making the noted comparison of
GPS data “after receipt” of an interrogation signal (brief, page 5).
In summary, even if we assume for the sake of argument that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references in the manner suggested by the examiner
(answer, pages 4 and 5), all of the limitations of claim 1 would still not be found in the combined
teachings. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 8 is
reversed.
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
GIFFORD KRASS GROH SPRINKLE ANDERSON
& CITKOWSKI
280 N OLD WOODWARD AVENUE SUITE 400
BIRMINGHAM MI 48009-5394
Appeal No. 2001-2020
Application No. 09/271,232
6
Letty
JUDGE HAIRSTON
APPEAL NO. 2001-2020
APPLICATION NO. 09/271,232
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ RUGGIERO
APJ BLANKENSHIP
DECISION: REVERSED
PREPARED: Jun 4, 2003
OB/HD
PALM
ACTS 2

DISK (FOIA)
REPORT
BOOK