Ex Parte Miocinovic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2017

12409315 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 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.
12/409,315 03/23/2009 Srdjan Miocinovic 156636U2/ 1376-1832U2 1170
111523 7590 12/07/2017
The Marbury Law Group/Qualcomm
11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, 15th Floor
Reston, VA 20191
EXAMINER
AMSDELL, DANA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2017 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):
ptonoticesqc @marburylaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SRDJAN MIOCINOVIC
and MAHESH CHOWDHARY
Appeal 2016-0006481
Application 12/409,3152
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—25 and 33—35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
April 27, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 13, 2015), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 20, 2015), and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 20, 2014).
2 Appellants identify CSR Technology Holdings, Inc. as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-000648
Application 12/409,315
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claims relate generally “to location positioning systems,
and more particularly, to a method and apparatus of improving navigation
solutions by receivers in satellite positioning systems, such as GPS systems,
by using an embedded map database” (Spec. 11).
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for determining a
position of a receiver included in a navigation device receiving
navigation signals from a plurality of satellites, the method
comprising the steps of:
[a] at the receiver:
[b] using the received navigation signals and a
positioning algorithm, determining the dimensions of a
confidence region around an estimated location of the
receiver;
[c] extracting cartography information from a map
database embedded within the receiver based on the
estimated location and the determined dimensions of the
confidence region;
[d] based on the cartography information, adjusting
at least one parameter of a filter that is used in the
positioning algorithm; and
[e] determining the position of the receiver by using
the positioning algorithm having the adjusted parameter,
[f] wherein one or more of the steps are executed by
a computer processor included in the receiver.
REJECTION
Claims 1—25 and 33—35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ciprian (US 6,317,683 Bl, iss. Nov. 13, 2001).
2
Appeal 2016-000648
Application 12/409,315
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2—23 and 33
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because “Ciprian
does not explicitly or inherently teach adjusting a parameter of a filter in the
ILe. samel positioning algorithm used to determine a position of the receiver
based on extracted cartography information,” as called for by independent
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2—5).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and cites Ciprian,
at column 4, lines 63—65, column 5, line 52—column 6, line 25, column 9,
lines 23—34, column 9, lines 60-67, column 13, lines 23—29, column 14,
line 40 —column 15, line 5, column 16, lines 9—16, column 16, lines 45—55,
column 26, line 16-column 32, line 20, and column 27, lines 55—56, as well
as Figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 10A, 21, and 22, as disclosing the argued subject matter
(see Final Act. 3—5; see also Ans. 2—8).
Ciprian is directed to a system “for determining a position and
direction of a vehicle relative to a road network represented by a geographic
database” (Ciprian, col. 2,11. 9—11). Ciprian discloses that its navigation
system 110 uses geographic data 140 that may be stored in vehicle 111 (id.
at col. 4,11. 63—65; see also id. at col. 5,1. 21—col. 6,1. 26). More
particularly, Ciprian discloses
vehicle positioning tool 240 is one of the software libraries that
may be included among the navigation tools 212. The vehicle
positioning tool 240 determines the position of a vehicle relative
to the geographic data 140 in the map database 141. In addition,
the vehicle positioning tool 240 determines whether the vehicle
is on or off the road network represented by the data 140 in the
geographic database 141.
3
Appeal 2016-000648
Application 12/409,315
{Id. at col. 7,11. 38-45). Ciprian further discloses
over time as the vehicle travels in the geographic region, the
vehicle positioning tool 240 receives calls 292 requesting data
identifying the vehicle position from the navigation application
210. The vehicle positioning tool 240 obtains data from the
sensors 125 as input. In response to these requests for data
identifying the vehicle position, the vehicle positioning tool 240
also obtains data from the geographic database 141. Upon
calculating a new vehicle position (as described in more detail
below), the vehicle positioning tool 240 provides an output 250
that represents the instantaneous location of the vehicle 111 with
respect to the geographic data 140 in the geographic database
141, if the vehicle is on the road network. This output 250 is
used by the map display tool 232, the route guidance tool 234,
the geocoding tool 236, or directly by the navigation application
210.
{Id. at col. 7,11. 46—61).
We have reviewed the cited portions of Ciprian and agree with
Appellants that none of the cited portions of Ciprian discloses the argued
limitations {see Appeal Br. 7—9; see also Reply Br. 2—5). Although we agree
with the Examiner that Ciprian is similar in its ultimate function to the
claimed invention {see Ans. 3), we cannot agree with the Examiner that
Ciprian anticipates the argued subject matter even “when you consider the
reference as a whole teaching in the context of the Appellants’ arguments”
(id.). Instead, we agree with Appellants that
[although Ciprian at various locations describes a Kalman filter
for determining a position using satellite signals, nowhere is
there any explicit or inherent teaching of adjusting parameters of
such a filter, much less adjusting a Kalman filter or any other
type of filter in GPS system 272 based on cartography
information as arranged or combined in the same wav as in the
claims.
(Appeal Br. 7—8).
4
Appeal 2016-000648
Application 12/409,315
In making this determination, we note that Ciprian discloses “[t]he
outputs of the various sensors are included in an output 280 of the device
independent layer 260. The output 280 is passed to the fusion layer 262.
The fusion layer 262 combines or fuses the various outputs received from
the device independent layer” (Ciprian, col. 8,11. 62—66). Ciprian then
discloses that “the fusion layer 262 uses the data from the device
independent layer 260 to compute an optimal (e.g., least-squares) estimate of
the true position of the vehicle. This may be accomplished by various
known techniques, such as dead-reckoning, Kalman filtering, or other
techniques which are known in the art” {id. at col. 9,11. 5—10). Following
this determination, Ciprian discloses that “the positioning layer 264 receives
the position, sensor and variance data 288 from the underlying layer, which
in this embodiment is the fusion layer 262. The positioning layer 264 uses
these measurements and their associated densities and variances to
determine whether the vehicle is on or off the road network, and the position
of the vehicle on the road network if the vehicle is determined to be on the
road network” {id. at col. 11,11. 4—11). Thus, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner has failed to establish that Ciprian discloses “adjusting a
parameter of a filter in the (i.e. same) positioning algorithm used to
determine a position of the receiver based on extracted cartography
information” (Reply Br. 3), as called for by independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as unpatentable over
Ciprian. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2—23 and 33 which depend from independent
claim 1.
5
Appeal 2016-000648
Application 12/409,315
Independent claims 24 and 25, and dependent claims 34 and 35
Independent claims 24 and 25 include limitations substantially similar
to the argued subject matter of independent claim 1 discussed above.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of independent claims 24 and 25, and claims 34 and 35 that depend
therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent
claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—25 and 33—35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
6