Ex Parte Pagonis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

13673068 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/673,068 11109/2012 John PAGONIS
100809 7590 10/28/2016
Core Wireless Licensing Ltd
5601 Granite Parkway
Suite 1300
Plano, TX 75024
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.
NC67636-US-CON 8583
EXAMINER
HOLLIDAY, JAIME MICHELE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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):
ipadmin-core@core-wireless.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN PAGONIS and MARK JACOBS
Appeal2015-004469
Application 13/673,068
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES W. DEJMEK, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 10-14 and 24--28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Core Wireless
Licensing S.a.r.l. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004469
Application 13/673,068
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a method of enabling a wireless
information device to access location data. Abstract. Claim 10 is illustrative
and reads as follows, with disputed limitations shown in italics:
10. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor
is programmed to cause the apparatus to at least:
select an absolute location finding system from one or
more absolute location finding systems running on the
apparatus that meets quality of position (QoP) parameters
defined by an authorized component running on the apparatus;
and
in response to selecting the absolute location finding
system that meets the defined quality of position parameters,
cause location data from the selected absolute location finding
system to be sent to the authorized component running on the
apparatus;
wherein the QoP parameters are selected from at least
one of: horizontal accuracy, vertical accuracy, time to fix, cost
and power consumption.
REJECTIONS
Claims 10 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fidler (US 2002/0161547 Al; Oct. 31,
2002) and Brebner et al. (US 2002/0194266 Al; Dec. 19, 2002) ("Brebner").
Claims 11 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fidler, Brebner, and Nowak et al. (US
2002/0193121 Al; Dec. 19, 2002).
2
Appeal2015-004469
Application 13/673,068
Claims 12-14 and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fidler, Brebner, and Lelievre et al.
(US 2003/0040272 Al; Feb. 27, 2003).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found Fidler teaches or suggests all of the limitations
recited in claim 10, except that the recited "quality of position (QoP)
parameters" are "defined by an authorized component running on the
apparatus," for which the Examiner relied on Brebner. Final Act. 4---6.
Appellants argue that, in Fidler, because the reliability of the location
data is assessed only after the location data has been obtained, "Fidler cannot
disclose or suggest selecting an absolute location finding system that meets
quality of position parameters, and sending location data in response to the
selection of the absolute locating finding system," as claim 10 requires.
App. Br. 3.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
plain language of claim 10 does not require assessing the reliability of
location data, but rather selecting an absolute location finding system that
meets QoP parameters.
Moreover, Appellants' arguments do not sufficiently rebut the
Examiner's findings. The Examiner found Fidler teaches searching for and
selecting a second device location by assessing location data capabilities.
Ans. 2-3 (citing Fidler i-fi-129-34). The Examiner further found Fidler
teaches that the selected second device sends location data to a first device.
Id. at 3 (citing Fidler i-fi-135-37); see also Fidler i134 ("If the second device
has such capabilities, the location data is obtained (block 42)"). Rather than
3
Appeal2015-004469
Application 13/673,068
address those findings, Appellants focus their arguments on Fidler' s
teaching of subsequently evaluating the reliability of the location data sent
by the second device, which occurs after the location data is obtained from
the second device. App. Br. 3 (citing Fidler i-fi-f 10, 34, 37); Reply Br. 1-2.
Indeed, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings
related to Fidler's paragraphs 29-33 (see Reply Br. 1-2), and we find
Appellants' arguments directed to paragraph 34 insufficient to rebut the
Examiner's findings as a whole (see App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2). In the Reply
Brief, Appellants state merely that "in Fidler location data is obtained
whenever the second device has the capability to report location data." Id. at
2 (citing Fidler i134). Appellants do not persuasively explain why Fidler's
teaching in paragraphs 29-34 of searching for and selecting a second device
using a geographically sequential search, which Fidler teaches can be based
on information such as signal strength or different ranges of operation of
different wireless communications protocols (see Fidler i130), would not
have taught or suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill the "select" limitation
recited in claim 10.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Fidler and Brebner teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 10.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 10, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 24, which Appellants argue is patentable for similar
reasons. App. Br. 4. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 11-14 and 25-28, for which Appellants make no additional
arguments. Id.
4
Appeal2015-004469
Application 13/673,068
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 10-14 and
24--28.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5