Ex Parte Rosenfeld

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10580497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JOSI ROSENFELD
____________________

Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2-6, 14, 17, 20-24, 26, and 27.
2
Appellant cancelled claims 1, 7-13,
15, 16, 18, 19, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The claims are directed to positioning method and apparatus for a
radio system Spec. Abstract. Claims 2, 3, and 4 reproduced below, are
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A positioning method for a radio system, the method
comprising:
receiving signals at a unit of the system;
applying at least one test on the received signals prior to
processing the signals;
wherein applying the test comprises determining
whether a signal level of the received signal is above a
threshold value;
in accordance with the applied test, selecting one
of: a correlation processing operation and a leading edge
processing operation; and
performing the selected one of the correlation
processing operation and the leading edge processing
operation.

1
Throughout the decision, we make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jul. 27, 2009), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
Jan. 6, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 10, 2009).
2
The real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

3
3. The method of claim 2, wherein applying the test further
includes:
in response to the level of the received signal being
below the threshold value, selecting the correlation processing
operation.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein applying the test further
includes:
when the level of the received signal is above the
threshold value, testing whether a leading edge gradient is
above a gradient threshold value.

References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sanderford, Jr.
Rudowicz
Diener
Goren
US 5,742,635
US 6,052,561
US 7,006,838 B2
US 7,069,025 B2
Apr. 21, 1998
Apr. 18, 2000
Feb. 28, 2006
Jun. 27, 2006

Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
3

Claims 2-3, 17, 20-22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Goren. Ans. 3-7.
Claims 4-6, 23, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Goren and Diener. Ans. 8-13.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Goren. Ans. 14.

3
The Examiner’s Grounds of Rejection includes claims previously
cancelled. See Ans. 3, 14, 15. The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claim 17. Ans. 20.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 2 – 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant argues that claim 2 is not anticipated by Goren because it
fails to “apply[] a test on received signals to determine whether a signal level
of the received signal is above a threshold (claim 2, lines 4-7).” App. Br. 16.
“Goren calls for applying a test to determine whether the line of sight peak
502 is separated from the multipath peak 504 rather than detecting whether
signal level is above a threshold value” as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 16.
Appellant also contend that Goren “applies the same leading edge
processing operation to determine the time of arrival (TOA)” using the line
of sight peak and multipath peak, but fails to “select[]one of a correlation
processing operation and a leading edge processing operation in accordance
with the applied test. (Claim 2, lines 9-11).” App. Br. 17.
Having reviewed the Appellant’s argument that Examiner erred (App.
Br. 16-17; Reply 2-3) and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 16), we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We agree
with the Examiner that Goren “discloses selecting between correlation
processing and leading edge processing.” Ans. 16 (citing Goren, col. 22 ll.
43-59, Figs. 15, 15A (showing correlation signal C(τ) which is the
correlation processing step 1590 and leading edge detection step 1585). We
also note that Appellant admits that “Goren has a single decision block 1575
which performs one test” and at “decision block 1575 determines that the
signal is of adequate quality, [and] then the time of arrival is estimated.”
Reply 4. Goren describes that test at block 1575 as including signal quality
checks using signal to noise ratio among other objective measures. Goren,
col. 22, ll. 31-35. Finally, we note that Appellant’s claim only recited
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

5
selecting one form of processing in “accordance with” the applied threshold
test. Thus, the threshold test is not required to be used to select the test in
any particular manner.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner did not err in finding that Goren
disclosed “applying a test on received signals to determine whether a signal
level of the received signal is above a threshold” as recited in claim 2. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Dependent Claim 3 – 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant contends that Goren does not “call[s] for the correlation
processing operation to be performed in response to the received signal
being below the threshold value. (Claim 3, lines 3 and 4).” App. Br. 18.
Instead, Goren only performs leading edge detection 1585 when the
minimum separation between line of sight and multipath peaks falls below a
threshold. App. Br. 18.
The Examiner found that Goren discloses the correlation processing
operation to be performed in response to the received signal being below the
threshold value when it uses correlation processing “(i.e. channel estimation
using correlation signal C(τ)) 1590 if the peak 1502 can be distinguished
from peak 1504 as disclosed in fig. 15A and Goren, col. 22 lines 49-56.)”
Ans. 17 (emphasis omitted).
We disagree with the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner appears to
rely on the test performed at step 1580 of Goren Figure 15, rather than the
test identified as step 1575 as applied to claim 2 supra. See Ans. 17; Goren
col. 22 lines 49-56. First, the test at 1580 are only performed if the
correlation function quality at step 1575 is sufficient or above a threshold.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

6
See Goren, col. 22, ll. 34-56. It is step 1575 that the Examiner relied on as
the test for claim 2. Ans. 16. The Examiner also has not shown how the
distinguishing peak 1502 from peak 1504 relates the received signal being
below the threshold value as recited in claim 3.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Goren
disclosed the claim 3 limitation “call[ing] for the correlation processing
operation to be performed in response to the received signal being below the
threshold value.” Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Dependent Claim 4 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Diener and Goren do not suggest or teach “performing a second test to
determine whether a leading edge gradient is above a gradient threshold
value. (Claim 4, lines 3-5).” App. Br. 18. Neither Diener nor Goren
propose a second test let alone a second test that “include[s] determining
whether a leading edge gradient is above a threshold gradient value. (Claim
4, lines 4-6).” App. Br. 19.
The Examiner responds that Goren teaches or suggests the two tests—
determining “whether the correlation function quality is sufficient in step
1575, fig. 15, and [then] determining whether the peak 1502 is able to be
distinguished from peak 1504 or overlap with multipath peak 1504 as
disclosed in fig. 15A and col. 22 lines 43-59” Ans. 17. It is Diener that
teaches “a detector 520 and a pulse detector coupled to the peak detector that
detects from the peak information pulses (i.e., gradient) that meet the
configured criteria (i.e. gradient threshold) in col. 8 lines 41-46.” Ans. 17.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

7
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Contrary to Appellant’s
arguments (Reply 4), we agree with the Examiner that Goren teaches or
suggests two tests, 1575 as first test and a second test to determine if the
multipath peak 1504 and peak 1502 are distinguishable. Goren cold. 22, ll.
43-59, Figs. 15, 15A. We also agree with the Examiner that Diener teaches
or suggests a test that is analysis of peaks from a collection of pulses, or a
gradient, that are tested to determine if the result is above a threshold level.
Ans. 17; Diener col. 8, ll. 41-46.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner did not err in finding that Goren
and Diener teach or suggest “performing a second test to determine whether
a leading edge gradient is above a gradient threshold value” as recited in
claim 4. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

Dependent Claim 6 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends that neither Diener nor Goren teach or suggest
selecting the correlation processing operation in response to the leading edge
gradient being above a gradient threshold value as recited in dependent
claim 6. Appellant argues that the Examiner has cited the same portion of
Goren to support that using the correlation process when the received signal
is both below and above a threshold. Reply 5 (discussing Examiners
response to claims 3 and 6 (Ans. 17, 18)). Regardless of the test purportedly
suggested by Goren, Appellant argues that Diener fails to teach or suggest
selecting a correlation process step in response to a leading edge gradient
threshold. App. Br. 20.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

8
The Examiner found that Diener teaches or suggests knowing the type
of signal to be located as being useful in deciding what type of signal
processing to perform. Ans. 18 (citing Diener, col. 8, ll. 51-55). Thus, the
Examiner finds that Diener teaches using channel estimation or correlation
processing based on the result of the signal detector suggested in Diener.
Id.; see Diener col. 8, ll. 41-44.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that Diener teaches or
suggests a particular test is performed after determining if the leading edge
gradient threshold is above a threshold. Although we agree with the
Examiner that Goren and Diener teach a two-part test, the Examiner has not
shown that the gradient determination identified in Diener either leads to or
selects the “correlation processing operation” recited in claim 6. Ans. 18;
see Diener col. 8, ll. 41-55. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Independent Claim 5 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends that neither Diener nor Goren teach or suggest
“selecting a correlation processing operation when the level of the received
signal is below a threshold value and selecting a leading edge processing
operation when a leading edge gradient is below a gradient threshold value”
as recited in independent claim 5. App. Br. 21. Appellant also contends that
“Goren, Fig. 15A and column 22, lines 43-49, do not show a step of
deciding between two processing methods.” Reply Br. 5.
Examiner found that Goren teaches two tests and that one such test
shows Goren selecting between the two based on the ability to separate
peaks. Ans. 19.
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

9
We agree with Appellant’s assertion that Goren does not show
deciding between two processing steps when the received signal level is
below a threshold or the leading edge gradient is below a gradient threshold.
As discussed with respect to dependent claim 3 supra, Goren teaches
correlation processing after step 1575 as the correlation step is performed
only if the signal is above a threshold. Goren, col. 22, ll. 34-56. Similarly,
as discussed with respect to claim 5 supra, the Examiner has not shown that
Diener teaches selection of any particular test based on the result of the
leading edge gradient. Diener, col. 8, ll. 41-55.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Independent Claim 14 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends that the Examiner failed to show that Goren alone
teaches or suggests the gradient formula as part of the testing process in
steps 1575, 1585 and 1590. App. Br. 22-23 (citing Goren, col. 22, ll. 49-56,
Figure 15).
The Examiner responds that Goren alone is sufficient as the gradient
calculation claimed is well known in the art and would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to use it for
measuring gradient. Ans. 15. The Examiner’s Answer cites Habitz (US
Patent No. 7,089,129) col. 4 for the well-known formula. Ans. 27.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner has not
shown that Goren alone teaches or suggests a leading edge gradient tests or
calculation as part of the process performed in steps 1575, 1585, and 1590.
Although the Examiner previously cited Diener for the leading edge gradient
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

10
case, the Examiner has provided no basis for the application of a leading
edge gradient to the teachings or suggestions of Goren alone.
Based on the record before us, we find the Examiner erred in finding
that Goren alone teaches or suggests applying a gradient measurement or
particular formula to the tests process taught in Goren. We cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Independent Claim 17 – 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because Goren fails to
disclose applying a test to select among two selectable processing
operations: a correlation processing operation and a leading edge processing
operation. App. Br. 25. Appellant admits that:
At [step] 1575, Goren applies a test and, based on the test,
either (1) applies a leading edge detection processing operation
1585 to a multipath peak 1504 or (2) uses a channel estimation
1590 to separate out the line of sight signal peak 1502 to which
the leading edge detection is applied.
App. Br. 25. Appellant argues, however, that Goren fails to disclose the
limitations of claim 17 that require selecting between two times of arrival
estimation processes. Reply 6-7 (citing Goren, col. 22, ll. 43-59).
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 2 supra, we agree with the
Examiner that Goren “discloses selecting between correlation processing
and leading edge processing.” Ans. 16, 21 (citing Goren, col. 22 ll. 43-59,
Figs. 15, 15A (correlation signal C(τ) 1590 and leading edge detection
1585). We also find that Goren discloses various options at step 1580 of
Figure 15 that disclose selecting between either of the processes, leading
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

11
edge detection (1585), and channel estimation (1590). See Goren, col. 22, ll.
43-49; Fig. 15.
Based on the foregoing, the Examiner erred in finding that Goren
discloses applying a test to select among two selectable processing
operations: a correlation processing operation and a leading edge processing
operation as recited in independent claim 17. We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Independent Claim 20 and
Dependent Claims 21, 22, and 26 – 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellant contends that Goren fails to disclose a testing means for
testing the received radio frequency signals which have not yet been subject
to a correlation processing operation as recited in independent claim 20.
App. Br. 26. Appellant argues that step 1570 in Goren, Figure 15, shows
that the received signal is subject to a correlation process before testing step
1575. App. Br 26; Reply 7.
The Examiner argues that channel estimation using correlation signal
C(τ) 1590 as the correlation processing operation where the received signal
has not been correlation processed before the testing step 1575. Ans. 21.
We agree with Appellant that Goren, Figure 15, shows that correlation
processing is shown in step 1570 prior to step 1575. See Goren, Fig. 15.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding that Goren discloses a testing
means for testing the received radio frequency signals which have not yet
been subject to a correlation processing operation as recited in independent
claim 20. Because claims 21, 22, and 26 depend from independent claim 20,
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

12
we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-22 and 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).

Dependent Claims 23 and 24 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dependent claims 23 and 24 depend from independent claim 20 and
dependent claims 21 and 22, discussed supra. Because Goren fails to teach
or suggest the limitations of the parent claims 20-22, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 23 and 24.

Independent Claim 27 – 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
With respect to claim 27, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred
because neither Diener nor Goren teaches or suggests selecting in response
to the level of the received signal being below a threshold value the
correlation processing operation. Reply 9. In addition, Appellant argues
that Denier fails to teach or suggest “in response to the leading edge gradient
value being below the gradient threshold value, selecting the leading edge
processing operation” as recited in independent claim 27.
We agree with Appellant. As discussed above with respect to claim 3
supra, Goren fails to teach or suggest selecting the correlation processing
step if the received signal in step 1575 is below the threshold as recited in
claim 27. See Goren, col. 22, ll. 34-56 (describing steps taken only if 1575
is above a threshold). Moreover, as discussed with respect to independent
claim 5, supra, we do not find that Denier teaches or suggests that a
particular test is performed after determining if the leading edge gradient is
above or below a threshold based on knowing usefulness in choosing signal
processing based on the type of signal to be located. See Ans. 25 (citing
Appeal 2010-007490
Application 10/580,497

13
Diener, col. 8, ll. 51-55). The Examiner has not shown that the gradient
determination identified in Diener either leads to or selects a particular test
such as the “leading edge operation” or the “correlation process operation”
recited in claim 27. Ans. 25-26; see Diener col. 8, ll. 41-55.
Because Goren and Diener fail to teach or suggest selecting various
operations if the received signal and leading edge gradient tests are below a
threshold, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4 is
AFFIRMED; and claims 3, 5, 6, 14, 17, 20-24, 26, and 27 is REVERSED.
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-IN-PART

ELD