Ex Parte Rick et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2012

10120329 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROLAND R. RICK, JEREMY M. STEIN,
MESSAY AMERGA, IVAN FERNANDEZ-CORBATON,
BORISLAV RISTIC, and ASHOK BHATIA
____________

Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, 21-32, 34-45, and 47-61. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention calculates a representative measurement of a
signal from a cellular base station to determine the position of a mobile
station. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0001, 0006-10. Claim 1 is illustrative with
key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for providing a representative measurement of the time
of arrival of a cellular base station signal, the representative measurement to
be used for determining the position of a mobile station using a plurality of
cellular base stations each emitting a unique cellular base station signal,
comprising:
making a plurality of substantially statistically independent data
measurements of the cellular base station signal such that each data
measurement is highly likely to be independent from other data
measurements taken of the same cellular base station signal, including
obtaining data measurements that are substantially independent in at least
one of time, space, and frequency, each of said data measurements including
an earliest time of arrival estimate, thereby providing a plurality of
statistically independent data measurements of the earliest time of arrival for
each of the cellular base station signals from said plurality of cellular base
stations;
determining a window of time;
selecting data measurements within said window of time;
calculating a representative measurement of a time of arrival of the
cellular base station signal responsive to said selected data measurements;
and
supplying said representative measurement to a position location
system.

Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
McCrady

US 6,453,168 B1

Sept. 17, 2002
(filed Aug. 2, 1999)
Larsson

US 6,522,887 B2

Feb. 18, 2003
(filed July 27, 1998)
Villier

US 6,675,018 B2

Jan. 6, 2004
(filed Dec. 21, 1999)
Hottinen US 2004/0072579 A1 Apr. 15, 2004
(filed July 10, 2003, cont. of
PCT/FI02/00022 filed Jan.
10, 2002)
Oh US 6,756,940 B2

June 29, 2004
(filed Dec. 18, 2001)
Hunzinger

US 6,961,543 B2 Nov. 1, 2005
(filed Feb. 12, 2002)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 21, 23, 25-30,
47-49, 55, 56, and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hunzinger, Larsson, and Oh. Ans. 4-15.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 14-17, 19, 22, 24, and 58 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunzinger, Larsson, Oh, and
Villier. Ans. 15-20.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 31, 32, 34-41, and 43 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hunzinger, Larsson, Oh, and McCrady.
Ans. 20-26.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed October 23,
2008 (revised December 12, 2008); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed
March 5, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief filed May 5, 2009.
Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

4
4. The Examiner rejected claims 42, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hunzinger, Larsson, Oh, McCrady, and Villier.
Ans. 26-29.
5. The Examiner rejected claims 50-54, 57, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Hunzinger, Larsson, Oh, and Hottinen. Ans. 29-
32.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hunzinger, Larsson, Oh, Villier, and Hottinen. Ans. 32-
33.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUNZINGER, LARSSON, AND OH
The Examiner finds that Hunzinger discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1, except for (1) determining a window of time and
selecting data measurements within the window, and (2) calculating a
representative measurement of a time of arrival (TOA) of a cellular base
station signal responsive to the selected data measurements, but cites
Larsson and Oh, respectively, as teaching these features in concluding that
the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-6, 34-36.
Appellants argue that Oh’s ranked TOA measurements are from
different base stations, contrary to the claimed invention which calculates a
representative data measurement based on data measurements taken from the
same base station signal. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-5.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

5
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Hunzinger, Larsson, and Oh collectively would have taught or
suggested calculating a representative measurement of a TOA of a cellular
base station signal responsive to selected data measurements of the signal?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Hunzinger discloses that a base station signal sent to a mobile
station may have multiple communications paths, including a line-of-sight
path 212 and multipath components 214 and 218, which are delayed with
respect to the line-of-sight path. Hunzinger, col. 3, ll. 59-67; Fig. 2.
Hunzinger also creates an energy profile 300 for each of several
communication paths 310-330 of a signal displaying measured energy 302
as a function of phase offset 304. Id., col. 4, ll. 1-4; Fig. 3. The energy
profile 300 indicates which path is earliest and latest in time. Id., Fig. 3.
2. Oh (1) ranks TOA measurements from multiple base station
signals, including determining a best-ranked TOA measurement, according
to certain quality indicators, and (2) selects a subset of the ranked TOA
measurements for use in a location estimation algorithm. Oh, col. 4, l. 55–
col. 6, l. 61; Fig. 3.
3. Appellants admit that Oh’s ranking system could include ranking
multiple TOA measurements from the same base station signal. Reply Br. 3
(“[I]t is possible that some of the TOA measurements can be for the same
base station signal . . . .”); id. at 5 (“[T]he TOA subsets used to generate
location estimates . . . can include different TOA measurements of the same
base station signal.”).
Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

6

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
part, “calculating a representative measurement of a time of arrival of the
cellular base station signal responsive to said selected data measurements.”
We find Appellants’ arguments which focus principally on Oh’s alleged
shortcomings (App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 2-5) unavailing since they do not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s position which is based on cited
references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”).
First, we find that the Examiner broadly but reasonably construed the
terms “calculating” and “representative.” Ans. 34. In light of this
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Oh calculates a
representative TOA measurement because Oh determines a best-ranked
TOA measurement to include in a subset of measurements. FF 2; Ans. 34-
35. Regarding whether it would have been obvious to perform such a
calculation responsive to data measurements taken from the same base
station signal, we look to the collective teachings of the cited art as follows.
Hunzinger determines relative time offsets for arrival of multiple
communication paths of a base station signal (i.e., taking TOA
measurements). See FF 1. Oh ranks TOA measurements from multiple base
stations, including determining a best-ranked TOA measurement, to
determine which measurements to use in a location estimation algorithm.
Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

7
FF 2. Further, despite arguing that Oh does not rank TOA measurements
from the same base station signal (App. Br. 11-12), Appellants nonetheless
admit that Oh’s system could rank a set of TOA measurements that include
TOA measurements from the same signal. FF 3.
Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), “if a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.” On this record, we see no reason why skilled
artisans would not apply Oh’s technique of ranking TOA measurements to
Hunzinger’s measurements to calculate a representative measurement of a
base station signal for use in a location estimation algorithm. In short,
applying Oh’s technique in this manner (i.e., to multiple measurements from
the same base station signal) would have been obvious to ordinarily skilled
artisans, particularly in light of Appellants’ admission. See FF 3. Therefore,
we see no reason why combining Oh’s technique with Hunzinger and
Larsson to determine a best-ranked measurement from a base station signal
would not predictably yield an accurate representative measurement for the
signal. Skilled artisans would likewise recognize that this representative
measurement would, in turn, enhance the mobile station’s location
estimation via an algorithm based, at least in part, on that measurement. See
Ans. 6.
Appellants also contend that Oh’s best-ranked measurement is not
“representative,” as recited in claim 1 (even if Oh’s ranking process includes
multiple measurements from a particular base station signal) because
multiple measurements from the same base station signal could be included
Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

8
in a subset of measurements used in the location estimation algorithm.
Reply Br. 4-5. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, it is
not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 because the term
“representative” does not preclude multiple representative measurements
under the Examiner’s construction. See Ans. 34. Second, as discussed
above, the cited references collectively at least suggest that applying Oh’s
ranking technique to select only the best-ranked measurement from a
particular base station signal to use in a location estimation algorithm would
have been obvious.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 21, 23, 25-30, 47-49, 55,
56, and 60 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2, 5,
14-17, 19, 22, 24, 31, 32, 34-45, 50-54, 57-59, and 61. Ans. 15-33. Despite
nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants rely on the same
arguments presented with respect to claim 1, and that the additional cited
references fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies. App. Br. 14-15.
We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously
discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19,
21-32, 34-45, and 47-61 under § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-012138
Application 10/120,329

9
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17, 19, 21-
32, 34-45, and 47-61 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