Ex Parte Nentwig

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 16, 2018

13639945 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/639,945 12/19/2012
11051 7590 03/20/2018
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nokia Technologies Oy
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Markus Nentwig
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
059864.02200 1009
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2018 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):
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
ipgeneraltyc@squirepb.com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARKUS NENTWIG
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, IRVINE. BRANCH and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-19, 22, and 23. Claims 10, 20, and 21 have been cancelled.
App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claims
Representative claims 1, 9, and 22 under appeal read as follows
(emphasis and bracketed material added):
1. A method, comprising:
[A.] determining, at a third node, a first propagation delay estimate to
a first node;
[B.] determining, at the third node, a second propagation delay
estimate to a second node;
[C.] receiving, at the third node, a first synchronization message from
the first node;
[D.] transmitting, from the third node, a second synchronization
message to the second node based on a command from the
first node wherein the second synchronization message
depends on the first synchronization message, the first
propagation delay estimate, and the second propagation delay
estimate.
9. A method, comprising:
[A.] estimating the accumulated movement of a radio transmitter
device;
[B.] encoding the accumulated movement into a motion estimation
message;
[C.] including, with the motion estimation message, a synchronization
message requesting synchronization via the device with a
second radio transmitter device; and
[D.] transmitting the motion estimation message to a device.
2
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
22. The method of claim 9, wherein the synchronization is not reliant
on global position system signals.
Rejections
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of You et al (US 2007 /0230510
Al, published Oct. 4, 2007) and Zuniga et al (US 2007/0258428 Al,
published Nov. 8, 2007). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2-8 and 12-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over You and Zuniga in various
combinations with other references. 2
3. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lane et al. (US
2007/0021121 Al, published Jan. 25, 2007), Bishop et al. (US
2009/0043445 Al, published Feb. 12, 2009), and Lipsanen (US 7,031,329
B2, issued Apr. 18, 2006). 3
1 Claim 11 is not argued separately. Except for our ultimate decision, claim
11 is not discussed further herein.
2 Although claims 2-8 and 12-18 are argued separately from claim 1, our
decisions as to these claims tum on our decision as to claim 1. Except for
our ultimate decision, claims 2-8 and 12-18 are not discussed further herein.
3 Claims 19 and 23 are not argued separately. To the extent Appellant
discusses claims 19 and 23, Appellant merely repeats for claims 19 and 23
the arguments directed to claims 9 and 22. Such a repeated argument is not
an argument for "separate patentability." Except for our ultimate decision,
claims 19 and 23 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9 and 22 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
Appeal Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Claim 1
Appellant contends4 that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Claim 1 recites "transmitting, from the third node, a
second synchronization message to the second node based on a
command from the first node." The Office Action
acknowledged that You does not disclose these features and cited
Zuniga. However, Zuniga also does not disclose these features.
Applicant respectfully submits that the motivation for the
combination is not taken from the prior art. For example, the
prior art does not mention the idea of allowing a reference BS to
specifically request synchronization of another BS, through a
relaying device ....
Furthermore, Zuniga does not disclose allowing a
reference BS to specifically request synchronization of another
BS, through a relaying device. According to the Office Action,
paragraph [0037] and Figure 7 of Zuniga mention that a
synchronization request can be relayed. The cited figure,
however, does not mention a synchronization request. Instead,
the cited figure merely mentions a synchronization message.
4 The contention we discuss is determinative as to the rejections of claims 1-
8 and 11-18 on appeal. Therefore, Appellant's other contentions as to the
rejections of these claims are not discussed in detail herein.
4
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
Moreover, from paragraph [0037] it can be seen that the
"synchronization message" is not a request. For example, the
paragraph states "The synchronization message includes a
common reference clock . . . . " This clock value may be useful
information for synchronization but is not a request.
App. Br. 11-12 (emphasis added).
As to Appellant's above contention, we agree. We conclude,
consistent with Appellant's argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner's findings. Therefore, we conclude that
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's final
conclusion that claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellant's invention.
Claim 9
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
As best understood, ... the Office Action took the position
that the GPS device of Bishop is configured to record a total
distance traveled.
On the other hand, however, total distance traveled is not
the same as or equivalent to the accumulated distance. For
example, if a vehicle were to travel one full circuit around the
DC Beltway, the total distance traveled would be 64 miles, but
the accumulated movement would be zero miles. . . . This
demonstrates, by way of example, that total distance and
accumulated movement are not the same thing.
Accordingly, Bishop's disclosure of recording total
traveled distance is not the same as, and does not suggest, the
"accumulated movement" features recited in the claims.
App. Br. 18-19 (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
The Examiner responds in-part:
The applicant tries to argue over [the prior art] by what could be
considered displacement from point of origin by giving an
example of traveling in a circle. In the case of traveling in a
circle, distance travelled is 64 miles in the example but
displacement is 0 miles. Distance is a scalar quantity
(numerical value only) and displacement is a vector quantity
(numerical value plus a direction).
Ans. 8 (emphasis added).
Appellant acknowledged that Bishop discloses "recording total
traveled distance." App. Br. 19. We agree with Appellant's argument that
Bishop's "accumulated distance traveled" is as not the same as
"accumulated movement." However, we disagree with Appellant's assertion
that Bishop's disclosure of total traveled distance does not suggest, the
"accumulated movement" features recited in the claims. As the Examiner
correctly points out (Ans. 8), the disclosed travel distance being accumulated
by Bishop and movement (i.e., displacement) being accumulated by
Appellant's claim 9 are related as "[d]istance is a scalar quantity (numerical
value only) and displacement is a vector quantity (numerical value plus a
direction)." Essentially, Appellant is arguing that an artisan is an automaton,
incapable of anything but the most basic use of the teachings of Bishop. We
disagree. The Court in KSR made clear that "[a] person of ordinary skill is
also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Contrary, to Appellant's assertion,
we conclude "accumulating movement" does suggest "accumulating
distance travelled."
6
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
Claim 22
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Claim 22 recites "wherein the synchronization is not
reliant on global position system signals." The Office Action
argued that Lipsanen does not mention GPS. This is irrelevant,
as the rejection of claim 9, from which claim 22 depends was not
based on Lipsanen alone but Lane, in view of Bishop, and further
in view of Lipsanen.
Without Bishop, the rejection of the claims cannot stand,
and Bishop is clearly reliant on GPS signals as acknowledged by
the Office Action at page 9 "Bishop discloses a GPS device .... "
Thus, if Lane's and/or Lipsanen's alleged teaching that the
synchronization is not reliant on global positioning system
signals were followed (as alleged for the rejection of claim 22)
then the features of Bishop would not be incorporated.
App. Br. 19--20 (emphasis added).
As to Appellant's above contention, we disagree. First, Lane is
explicit that the type of position determination is optional.
Wireless terminal 400 obtains its position from at least some of
the following optional elements: GPS receiver 414, I/O interface
416, GPS based WT position determination module 417, stored
WT position 418, WT position determination module 420.
Different ones of the optional elements (414, 416, 417, 418, 420)
are included in WT 400 depending upon the specific
embodiment.
Lane i-f 61 (emphasis). Lane makes clear that the position determination may
be GPS ("GPS based WT [wireless terminal] position determination module
417") or non-GPS ("WT position determination module 420").
Second, we disagree with Appellant's position that each of Lane,
Bishop, and Lipsanen must be non-GPS systems before their teachings can
be used in combination. Appellant presents no basis in the law for this
7
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
position. Rather, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed
to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. We conclude that a proper
basis exists for the Examiner to reject claim 22 based on the combination of
Lane, Bishop, and Lipsanen. Further, Appellant points to no technology
basis (and we find none) as to why an artisan would not understand the
accumulated movement suggested by Bishop's disclosed accumulated travel
distance to be equally applicable to any of the position determination types
disclosed by Lane.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-8 and 11-18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 9, 19, 22, and 23
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-8 and 11-18 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
(4) Claims 9, 19, 22, and 23 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 19, 22, and 23 is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
8
Appeal2017-009957
Application 13/639,945
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9