Ex Parte Nicholls et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

13132464 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/132,464 06/02/2011
31292 7590 05/27/2016
CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A.
200 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 2040
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles Nicholls
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.
22493-308PUS
(19597ROUS09
5562
EXAMINER
CHEN, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2016 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):
ptomail@cwiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES NICHOLLS and MICHEL OUELLETTE
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1--4 and 11-14. Claims 7-10 and 17--45 are canceled. 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rockstar Consortium US
LP. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim. See Final Act. 14.
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
multiple redundant global navigation satellite system (GNSS)
synchronization of a plurality of base stations via a system node that is in
communication with a plurality of base stations. Abstract. 3
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method in a system node, the system node in
communication with a plurality of base stations each having a
respective internal clock, the method comprising:
providing time information to, and receiving time
information from, each of the plurality of base stations;
generating a system time reference based on at least some
of the time information; and
for a base station of the plurality of base stations that
does not have the respective internal clock synchronized with
an external time epoch reference, providing time
t. .. ·.c . t.t. . t.. syncuromzatwn m1ormatwn to tue uase statwn to syncuromze
the respective internal clock of the base station with the system
time reference.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lundh (US 6,577 ,872 B 1; issued June 10,
3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Sept. 20, 2013 ("Final
Act."), Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Feb. 24, 2014 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed May 22, 2014 ("Ans."), Appellants' Reply Brief
filed July 21, 2014 ("Reply Br."), and the original Specification filed June 2,
2011 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
2003) and Gorokhov (US 2009/0052430 Al; published Feb. 26,
2009).
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lundh, Gorokhov, and Monnerat (US
2008/0161014 Al; published July 3, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants' briefs is whether Lundh
teaches or suggests the limitation "generating a system time reference based
on at least some of the time information," as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in claim 11.
The Examiner finds Lundh teaches the limitation at issue. Final Act.
6, 9; Ans. 3 (citing Figure 4, steps 4-2, 4-3, 4-4; col. 9, 11. 4--15). In regard
to Appellants' argument that Lundh's adjustment message is not a system
time reference because it only has significance with respect to the recipient
STU (Slave Timing Unit), the Examiner finds "that a system time reference
is not a clock, but it is an adjustment/offset in order to synchronize with the
respective internal clock of the base station." Ans. 4. Regarding
Appellants' argument that Lundh's adjustment value is different in nature
than the claimed system time reference because the adjustment value is only
an offset value and not a true reference value (see App. Br. 7), the Examiner
finds Appellants fail "to claim/provide what the system time reference is and
/or what a true reference value is in details." Ans. 5. In regard to
Appellants' argument that Lundh's MTU (Master Timing Unit) does not
generate a system time reference based on time information exchanged with
multiple base stations (see App. Br. 8), the Examiner finds Lundh teaches
3
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
system node RNC (Radio Network Controller) provides timing information
to, and receives timing information from, a plurality of base stations 22i to
22n, and generates a system time reference based on at least some of the time
information. Ans. 6 (citing Figs. 1, 4; col. 6, 11. 18--42; col. 9, 11. 4--15).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred.
See App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 3-5. In particular, we agree with Appellants
that the synchronization adjust signal sent by the MTU to the STU, as shown
and described in Figure 4 and column 9, lines 5-15, of Lundh does not teach
or suggest the limitation "generating a system time reference based on at
least some of the time information." We agree with Appellants' argument
that Lundh teaches the "adjustment message is based on a difference value
between a predicted time stamp that a synchronization message is received
by the STU and an actual time stamp the synchronization message is
received by the STU." App. Br. 6 (citing Lundh col. 12, 11. 52-55; col. 13,
1. 64--col. 14, 1. 4). As Appellants also argue, Lundh explicitly teaches
"adjustment value SFNadjust, which is an offset value, is computed by master
timing unit 60." Id. (citing Lundh col. 14, 11. 1-3). Thus, we agree with
Appellants' arguments that Lundh's adjustment message is an offset that is
used only for adjusting the receiving STU's oscillator and cannot be
considered a system time reference. Id. at 5---6. Based on these teachings of
Lundh and the language of claims 1 and 11, we further agree with
Appellants' argument that Lundh's synchronization adjust signal is different
in nature or kind from, and not equivalent to, the claimed "system time
reference." See App. Br. 7. In this regard, we note claims 1 and 11
specifically distinguish between the "system time reference" and "providing
time synchronization information to the base station to synchronize the
4
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
respective internal clock ... with the system time reference." Although
Lundh's MTU necessarily has access to a system time reference by which to
calculate the synchronization adjust signal, the Examiner has not shown such
a system time reference is "based on at least some of the time information"
that, as claim 1 recites, is received from, or provided to "each of the plurality
of base stations."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 11, as
well as dependent claims 2--4 and 12-14, which depend from claims 1 and
11, respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 11-14.
REVERSED
5
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES NICHOLLS and MICHEL OUELLETTE
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
CONCURRING OPINION
Although I concur with the Majority in reversing the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1--4 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), I write
separately because I find the Examiner has not articulated clearly, and
distinguished, the findings in Lundh, or in other prior art of record, the
claimed "system time reference" and "time synchronization information"
that is provided to a base station.
I agree with the Examiner that Lundh teaches, inter alia, providing
time synchronization information to a base station to synchronize the
respective internal clock of the base station with a system time reference.
See Lundh, col. 8, 1. 61---col. 9, 1. 17; see also Fig. 4. I find Lundh teaches
Appeal2014-008195
Application 13/132,464
the time synchronization information is generated based at least in part on
timing information exchanged between the Master Timing Unit (MTU) of
the Radio Network Controller (RNC, i.e., a system node) and the Slave
Timing Unit (STU) of a base station. Id.
Although I also find Lundh teaches the MTU may receive clock
signals from a reference timing source (Lundh, col. 6, 11. 28-32), I do not
find the Examiner has sufficiently explained how Lundh generates a system
timing reference based on at least some of the time information exchanged
between the RNC/MTU and STUs.
Based on this record, I am constrained to concur in reversing the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 11-14.
2