Ex Parte Ramesh

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2003

09098049 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2003)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte RAJARAM RAMESH

Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-28.
The invention is directed to a mobile position computation
apparatus within a region serviced by a radio communication
network, best illustrated by reference to representative
independent claim 1, reproduced as follows:
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-2–
1. A mobile position computation apparatus for use within a
region serviced by a radio communication network comprising:
a first receiver for receiving a radio communication
broadcast over the radio communication network on a broadcast
control channel;
a second receiver for receiving positioning messages
broadcast by a positioning satellite;
position computation circuit coupled to the second receiver;
and
means coupled to said first receiver for obtaining
positioning data from the radio communication broadcast and
providing the positioning data to the position computation
circuit for use in acquisition of the positioning satellite.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Schuchman et al. 5,365,450 Nov. 15, 1994
[Schuchman]
Wortham WO 96/15636 May 23, 1996
(PCT application)
Claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103 as unpatentable over Schuchman in view of Wortham.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
With regard to independent claims 1 and 11, it is the
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-3–
examiner’s position that Schuchman discloses a first receiver at
21, a second receiver at 20, a position computation circuit
inside the second receiver 20 and a means, 22, coupled to the
first receiver, for obtaining data from the radio communication
broadcast and providing the position data to the computation
circuit for use in acquisition of the position satellite. The
examiner maintains that while Schuchman fails to explicitly teach
that the broadcast digital channel is a broadcast control
channel, the use of a control channel for conveying data is
“conventionally well known, which is taught by Wortham” [answer-
page 4]. Since Wortham teaches that control data can be
transmitted via control channel from the base station to the
mobile station, the examiner contends that it would have been
obvious “to provide radio communication on a broadcast control
channel of Wortham into the system of Schuchman in order to
reserve traffic channels for other mobile stations.”
For his part, appellant argues that the art recognizes
distinctions between “broadcast” and “traffic,” or “data link,”
channels and that Schuchman, itself, refers separately to
“broadcast or cellular data link” in Figure 2. Moreover,
appellant argues, Schuchman does not teach the use of a
“broadcast” channel to provide “positioning data.” Rather,
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-4–
according to appellant, Schuchman’s “broadcast digital channels”
at most, support call set-up and do not, themselves, provide the
assistance information. That is, in appellant’s view, Schuchman
“simply does not teach or suggest broadcasting the positioning
data on a broadcast channel but, instead, suggests the use of a
traffic channel established responsive to a request for the
information” [principal brief-page 7].
Further, appellant contends that Wortham does not provide
for the deficiency of Schuchman. While appellant admits that it
is known to transmit control data via a control channel, which is
all that Wortham is cited for by the examiner, appellant argues
that Schuchman not only fails to teach the control channel, but
also a broadcast channel and that it is not appropriate to
separate the content of the broadcast information, i.e.,
“positioning data,” as recited in the claims, from the form of
broadcast which are both included in a single step recitation.
Appellant points out that the combination of references is
not appropriate because Schuchman is not directed to differential
GPS while Wortham is directed to differential GPS. Accordingly,
in appellant’s view, Schuchman provides for assistance
information for use in acquiring satellites while correction
information is provided in Wortham to refine the accuracy of
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-5–
position measurements by a mobile device.
Initially, we note that since the examiner employs Wortham
exclusively for the teaching of using a control channel for
conveying data, and appellant now admits that it is known to
transmit control data via a control channel, the use of Wortham
in the rejection is superfluous and we should concentrate on the
issue of whether Schuchman suggests using a broadcast channel to
provide positioning data or whether it would have been obvious to
provide a broadcast channel in Schuchman to do so.
From our review of Schuchman, it does appear that the
reference discloses a “first receiver” in cellular radiotelephone
unit 21 and a “second receiver” in GPS receiver 20 for receiving
positioning information from a satellite. In accordance with
column 7, line 24, of Schuchman, GPS receiver 20 uses data
obtained from controller 22 to, inter alia, “calculate the
position of the receiver” and acquire the positioning satellite.
However, it is not clear, from Schuchman’s disclosure,
whether Schuchman employs a broadcast channel to provide
positioning data to the second receiver 20 by a positioning
satellite or whether the first receiver 21 receives a broadcast
on a broadcast control channel. Schuchman’s abstract states that
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-6–
a GPS system “is provided with a separate source satellite
position data broadcast digital channels and one or more dial-up
service separate communication channels...for assisting the
mobile radio station to access position information from the
satellites.” However, it appears that the language “assisting
the mobile radio station to access position information from the
satellites” modifies “one or more dial-up service separate
communication channels” in which case position information is not
received by using the broadcast digital channels. Even if the
language “assisting...to access position information from the
satellites” is modifying “satellite position data broadcast
digital channels and one or more dial-up service separate
communication channels” [emphasis added], this would still
indicate that the position information is not received by using
the broadcast digital channels alone. Since the language of
Schuchman, itself, is unclear as to whether Schuchman is
providing for position information received on a broadcast
channel, any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, using Schuchman’s
teaching as a basis, would be based on speculation at best. This
is not a proper basis on which to rest a rejection under
35 U.S.C. 103.
Moreover, a broadcast “digital” channel is not, necessarily,
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-7–
a broadcast “control” channel, as recognized by the examiner in
applying Wortham. If Schuchman does not disclose or suggest the
use of a broadcast “control” channel, what would have led the
artisan to provide for one? Merely because such “control”
channels were known and that it was known to provide data on a
control channel does not, per se, make it obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103, to provide for a broadcast control
channel in the system of Schuchman. The examiner indicates that
this would have been done “in order to reserve traffic channels
for other mobile stations” but there is no indication, within the
applied references, that there would have been any need for, or
advantage in, reserving traffic channels for other mobile
stations. Accordingly, the examiner has provided insufficient
motivation for modifying Schuchman in order to provide for the
deficiency admitted by the examiner.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, and the claims dependent thereon,
under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since independent claims 23, 25 and 27 also contain the
limitation of a “broadcast control channel,” we will not sustain
the rejection of these claims, or of the claims dependent
thereon, under 35 U.S.C. 103, for the reasons supra.
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-8–
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-28
under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-2017
Application No. 09/098,049
-9–
EK/RWK
RICHARD J. BIRCH
P O BOX 1818
6 WOODLAND DRIVE
NEW LONDON, NH 03257