Ex Parte Niemenmaa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2013

11341026 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JARKO NIEMENMAA and VILLE RUUTU1
____________

Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES B. ARPIN, and TRENTON A. WARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to methods, apparatus, and computer
program products for providing location information based on a selected

1 Nokia Corporation is the real party in interest.
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

2
location method determined from a set of such methods based on
predetermined selection criteria. See generally Abstract. Specifically, the
location method may be selected to meet a location accuracy requirement
specified in a request for location information while consuming a
determinable amount of resources. Id. The predetermined selection criteria
may be updated over time, such that the methods, apparatus, and computer
program products are self-learning. Id. Claims 1 and 5-7 are illustrative and
are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
determining a selected location method from a set of location
methods based on predetermined selection criteria;
communicating the selected location method to a position
determining entity, the selected location method used to determine
location information of a mobile terminal; and
updating the predetermined selection criteria responsive to
information received from the position determining entity, the
information being descriptive of the predetermined selection criteria
based at least on employment of the selected location method with
respect to the determined location information.

5. A method according to Claim 4, wherein updating the
predetermined selection criteria comprises updating the expected
accuracy based on accuracy information associated with the selected
location method.

6. A method according to Claim 5, wherein updating the
predetermined selection criteria comprises associating information
about a location of an event generating an update with the update.

7. A method according to Claim 4, wherein updating the
predetermined selection criteria comprises updating the resource
consumption associated with the selected location method.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

3
Nowak

Khushu
US 2006/0030337 A1

US 2006/0052115 A1
Feb. 9, 2006
(filed Sep. 29, 2005)
Mar. 9, 2006
(filed Sep. 7, 2004)
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nowak and Khushu. Ans. 3-12.2

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER NOWAK AND KHUSHU
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nowak
teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except that Nowak does not
specifically teach the recited, predetermined selection criteria. Ans. 4.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds that Khushu teaches the recited,
predetermined selection criteria. Id. Further, with respect to the additional
limitations of dependent claims 5-7, the Examiner finds that Nowak teaches
these additional limitations. Id. at 8.
Appellants argue that Nowak and Khushu do not teach or suggest the
disputed limitation, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-10. Further,
Appellants argue that Nowak and Khushu do not teach or suggest the
additional limitations of claims 5-7. Id. at 10-11.
ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Nowak and Khushu, collectively, would have taught or

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
June 29, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed September 29,
2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed October 29, 2009. Although
the Examiner indicates that claims 1-28, instead of claims 1-29, stand
rejected (Ans. 3), we treat this as a typographical and harmless error since
the Examiner treats claim 29 in this rejection. Ans. 12.
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

4
suggested “updating the predetermined selection criteria responsive to
information received from the position determining entity, the information
being descriptive of the predetermined selection criteria based at least on
employment of the selected location method with respect to the determined
location information”?
(2) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Nowak and
Khushu, collectively, would have taught or suggested:
(a) “updating the expected accuracy based on accuracy information
associated with the selected location method,” as recited in claim 5?
(b) “associating information about a location of an event generating an
update with the update,” as recited in claim 6?
(c) “updating the resource consumption associated with the selected
location method,” as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim 1.
Appellants divide the disputed limitation of claim 1 into two portions:
(1) “updating the predetermined selection criteria responsive to information
received from the position determining entity” and (2) “the information
being descriptive of the predetermined selection criteria based at least on
employment of the selected location method with respect to the determined
location information.” App. Br. 6-9. Appellants argue that Nowak and
Khushu fail to teach or suggest either portion of the disputed limitation. Id.
Based on the record before us, we see no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1.

Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

5
a. Teaching the Updating Step.
First, Appellants argue that Nowak and Khushu fail to teach or
suggest “updating the predetermined selection criteria responsive to
information received from the position determining entity [(PDE)].” Id. at 6.
With regard to Novak, Appellants acknowledge that Nowak permits the
selection of a location determination method, using factors such as accuracy,
cost, and timeliness. Id.; see also Nowak, ¶ [0051] (“[A]t some point prior
to initiation of the protocol 700, the ranges associated with each
specification (geographical accuracy, cost, timeliness, etc.) will have been
defined.”). Referring to Nowak’s Paragraphs [0051] and [0052], Appellants
further acknowledge that Nowak describes a system in which low, medium,
or high accuracy may be specified and in which a PDE3 of corresponding
accuracy may be selected. App. Br. 6-7. Nevertheless, Appellants argue
that, because Nowak does not update the predetermined criteria responsive
to information received from the PDE, Nowak’s system does not account for
the most recent locating conditions. Id. Appellants argue that this
difference is evident from Nowak’s description that the system
specifications are fixed “at some point prior to initiation of the protocol
700.” Nowak, ¶ [0051] (emphasis added). Therefore, Appellants contend
that Nowak does not teach “updating,” as recited in claim 1. We disagree.
The Examiner finds that, in Paragraphs [0041] and [0051], Nowak
teaches the “updating” step, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. Referring to

3 We find that Nowak’s “position determining equipment” properly maps on
Appellants’ “position determining entity,” and we use the abbreviation
“PDE” to describe both elements. Both Nowak and Appellants describe the
Global Positioning System (GPS) as an example of a PDE. Compare
Nowak, ¶ [0006] with Spec. ¶ [0004]; see also Khushu, ¶¶ [0004], [0007].
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

6
Paragraph [0041], Nowak teaches the elements of records 66 of PDE site
database 62, as depicted in Nowak’s Figure 4. Ans. 14-15. As Nowak
states, “it [is] possible to revise the range of the specification [in the PDE
database record] as system capabilities increase.” Nowak, ¶ [0040]
(emphasis added); see Ans. 15. Appellants contend that the use of the term
“update” in claim 1 should be distinguished from the use of the term
“revise” by Nowak. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Again, we disagree.
We apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill
in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied by Appellants’
Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Contrary
to Appellants’ assertion (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3), we find that there is no
significant distinction between Nowak’s use of the term “revise” and
Appellants’ use of the term “update.” See Ans. 17. We note that a pertinent
definition of the term “to revise” is “to alter (something written or printed),
in order to correct, improve, or update.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S
COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1128 (2d Random House ed. 1999) (emphasis added).
Nowak further discloses that different PDEs may have different
capabilities, e.g., different accuracies. Nowak, ¶¶ [0006], [0013], [0051];
see also Spec. ¶ [0004] (similarly described in the “Background of the
Invention”); see also Ans. 3-4. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art would appreciate that replacing existing PDEs with improved
PDEs having different capabilities would update or revise the PDE
accuracies. Nowak, ¶ [0040]. Thus, referring to Nowak’s Figure 4, the
determination accuracy of a PDE may “increase,” resulting in a decrease in
the coverage area of the PDE, and the physical location of the PDE may
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

7
change, resulting in a new geographic location for the PDE’s coverage area.
See Ans. 15.
Nowak further states that “this arrangement provides great flexibility
in comparing [Quality of Service (QoS)] attributes with PDE capabilities
and allows for changes in system capabilities to be implemented without
necessarily changing the QoS parameters used by the location based
applications.” Nowak, ¶ [0051] (emphasis added). Consequently, as
improvements to geographical accuracy of PDEs within Nowak’s system
become available, “the interface may be configured such that it is able to
receive requests from a client (i.e., application) having a narrower range.”
Id. at ¶ [0040]. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that Nowak teaches the
updating of predetermined selection criteria as a result of location
information received from a selected PDE. We agree.
To the extent that Appellants argue that Nowak describes defining the
ranges associated with each specification “prior to the initiation of the
protocol” and that Appellants’ claim 1 recites updating at a different time,
we find such arguments unpersuasive. Initially, we note that, according to
claim 1, because the “updating” occurs “responsive to the information
received,” the “updating” must occur after the “determining” and
“communicating” steps. Appellants argue that the “updating” step affects
future determinations (App. Br. 9), but, in their claim 1, Appellants do not
specify when the “updating” occurs (id. at 13). Thus, we construe the
language of claim 1 to describe updating the predetermined selection criteria
at any time before a future determination. As the Examiner explains,
“[e]ach time the location process is executed represents a new opportunity to
incorporate changed PDE values that will represent updated selection
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

8
criteria.” Ans. 15. Therefore, Nowak’s defining PDE ranges prior to the
next initiation of the protocol is not excluded by Appellants’ claim language.
b. Teaching Descriptive Information.
Second, Appellants argue that Nowak fails to teach that “the
information being descriptive of the predetermined selection criteria based at
least on employment of the selected location method with respect to the
determined location information” is used to update the predetermined
selection criteria. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants describe that future location
determinations take into account the accuracy or consumption of resources,
or both, of current determinations. Id. at 9; see Spec. ¶ [0009].
The Examiner finds that, in Nowak, “the ranges associated with each
specification (geographical accuracy, cost, timeliness, etc.) will have been
defined.” Nowak, ¶ [0051]; Fig. 4. The Examiner finds that Nowak’s
specification of accuracy and cost corresponds to Appellants’ exemplary
description of “predetermined selection criteria.” Further, as noted above,
coverage area is determined based on the physical location of a PDE and the
application of its detection radius (determining accuracy) to the equation for
a circle. Ans. 15 (citing Nowak, ¶ [0041]). Because Nowak discloses a
PDE specification database (Nowak, ¶ [0041]; Fig. 4), and because the
values stored in this database may be “revised” to reflect increased
capabilities (id. at ¶ [0040]), we agree with the Examiner that this second
portion of the disputed limitation also is taught by Nowak.
c. Khushu’s Teaching.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Khushu teaches that a position result
returned by a PDE is “tested for acceptability . . . according to one or more
predetermined criteria,” e.g., the accuracy of the PDE’s location
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

9
determination is compared to certain system criteria. Khushu, ¶ [0031]; see
Ans. 4. Appellants argue, however, that Khushu fails to teach or suggest the
limitations of Appellants’ claim 1 that allegedly are missing from Nowak.
App. Br. 9. For the reasons set forth above, however, we are not persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies in Nowak.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 11, 17,
and 27, which are not argued separately with particularity (App. Br. 9-10);
and (3) dependent claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12-14, 18-22, 25, 26, 28, and 29, each
of which depends from one of claims 1, 11, 17, or 27 and is not separately
argued with particularity (id. at 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection
of these claims.
2. Claim 5.
Based on the record before us, we see no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 5 which calls for, in pertinent part,
“updating the expected accuracy based on accuracy information associated
with the selected location method.” Appellants argue that Nowak fails to
teach updating the “expected” accuracy. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that
Nowak instead teaches selecting a PDE based on its location and secondary
considerations, e.g., cost. Id. (citing Nowak, ¶ [0020]). Nevertheless,
Nowak describes that PDEs may be correlated with a particular position
determination technology, e.g., GPS (Nowak, ¶ [0051]); that PDEs may be
chosen based on accuracy (id. at ¶¶ [0006], [0041]); and that QoS attributes
may be compared with PDE capabilities to allow changes in system
capabilities, e.g., location methods (id. at ¶ [0051]). Ans. 18. Therefore, we
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

10
are persuaded by the Examiner’s findings that Nowak teaches the additional
limitation of claim 5.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: claim 5 and claims 15 and 23, which contain limitations
corresponding to those of claim 5 and are not argued separately with
particularity (App. Br. 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.
3. Claim 6.
Based on the record before us, we see no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 6 which calls for, in pertinent part,
“associating information about a location of an event generating an update
with the update.” Appellants argue that Nowak does not disclose that QoS
location parameters may be assigned flexible values (Reply Br. 5) and that,
even if the QoS location parameters could be flexibly changed, Nowak does
not teach that such flexibility would not associate information about the
location of an update generating event with the update (App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5). Nevertheless, the Examiner demonstrates that, depending upon the
accuracy required, a different PDE with different specifications (QoS
information) may be selected. Ans. 8 (citing Nowak, ¶ [0051]), 18. Further,
the Examiner finds that the movement of a mobile device may be an “event”
prompting the requirement for a different PDE (e.g., an update). Id.
Therefore, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s findings that Nowak teaches
the additional limitation of claim 6.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 6. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of this claim.
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

11
4. Claim 7.
Based on the record before us, we see no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 7 which calls for, in pertinent part,
“updating the resource consumption associated with the selected location
method.” Appellants argue that Nowak includes “no disclosure regarding
updating the predetermined selection criteria at all.” App. Br. 11 (emphases
added). Consequently, Appellants maintain that there can be no updating of
the resource consumption associated with the selected location method. Id.
For the reasons set forth above, we disagree.
Referring to Paragraph [0051], Nowak teaches that, prior to
determining a location, “the ranges associated with each specification
(geographical accuracy, cost, timeliness, etc.) [of a PDE] will have been
defined” (emphasis added). See also Nowak, Figs. 4, 7. We agree with the
Examiner that “cost” is a measure of resource consumption. Ans. 18.
Further, the Examiner finds that any parameter of a PDE may be expressed
in “standard” terms and compared to corresponding parameters of other
PDEs. Nowak, ¶ [0051]. Moreover, because “any QoS parameter may be
assigned a standardized value with and compared to any value in PDE
database record 66” (id. (emphasis added)), the Examiner concludes that
Nowak teaches that “any QoS attribute can be change [sic] allowing great
flexibility for changes is [sic] systems capabilities.” Ans. 18. We agree.
Therefore, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s findings that Nowak teaches
the additional limitation of claim 7.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of: claim 7 and claims 8, 16, and 24, not argued separately
Appeal 2010-006978
Application 11/341,026

12
with particularity (App. Br. 11). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these
claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-29 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc