Ex Parte Siddiqui

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10788614 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/788,614 02/27/2004 Qirfiraz Ahmed Siddiqui 6485
71192 7590 02/28/2013
QIRFIRAZ AHMED SIDDIQUI
1752 KNOX STREET
CASTRO VALLEY, CA 94546
EXAMINER
KARIKARI, KWASI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QIRFIRAZ AHMED SIDDIQUI
____________

Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 12-26. Claims 1-11 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 12, 2010) and the Answer (mailed
Apr. 26, 2010). We have considered in this decision only those arguments
Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614

2
Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the notification to a subscriber of a
mobile device of the location-dependent variable timings of daily prayers.
See generally Abstract.
Claim 12 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
12. A method of notifying a mobile device of location-dependent
prayer timings, the method comprising:
determining an estimated location of the mobile device, within a
precision of a coverage area of at least one base station by employing a
location technology algorithm;
comparing the estimated location of the mobile device to a translation
table stored at one or more memory locations including the mobile device
and/or a remote server capable of forwarding information to the mobile
device, said translation table used to determine at least one prayer time based
on a function of at least the estimated location of the mobile device, a time
of year as measured from pre-stored annual calendar position information
corresponding to the estimated location, and a time of day as measured at the
estimated location, and where the estimated location of the mobile device
used to determine the at least one prayer time is based on the coverage area
of the at least one base station and a current cell identification (Cell ID)
parameter assigned to the mobile device,
wherein said Cell ID is a parameter in the translation table which
identifies the Cell ID as an estimated location parameter of the mobile
station based on the coverage area of the base station, and where the
translation table is used to match a corresponding prayer time to the Cell ID
by matching the coverage area of the base station with at least one of the
time of year and the time of day which are also parameters in at least one of
the translation table and a look-up table; and
Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614

3
translating the determined at least one prayer time into a wireless
communication message and forwarding the message to the mobile device.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Rankin US 6,879,838 B2 Apr. 12, 2005
(filed Apr. 20, 2001)
Hasebe US 6,946,991 B2 Sep. 20, 2005
(filed Nov. 8, 2002)
Claims 12-26, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rankin in view of Hasebe.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 12, 22, and 25 based on the combination of Rankin and
Hasebe, contend that, even if combined, the applied prior art does not teach
all of the claimed elements. In particular, Appellant contends that neither
Rankin nor Hasebe discloses the use of cell identification (Cell ID) as a
parameter in a table to determine and identify an estimated location of a
mobile device as claimed. According to Appellant, Rankin utilizes global
positioning system (GPS) or time-of-arrival based location techniques to
determine mobile station location, not a Cell ID based location scheme (Br.
14-19). Appellant further contends that Hasebe does not remedy the
deficiencies of Rankin, since Hasebe’s disclosure is limited to the use of a
GPS location determining scheme to determine when and what direction to
face when praying (Br. 19-21).
We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive of any error in the
Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 18-20). In particular, we find no error in
Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614

4
the Examiner’s determination that cellular communication systems
inherently include cells controlled by a specific base station which
broadcasts and uses Cell ID information as a parameter to locate a mobile
station that has registered with the base station during power-up (Ans. 18).
The Examiner directs attention to the portion of Rankin (col. 5, ll. 56-59)
that describes the updating of available resources depending on location of a
mobile station upon registration with a particular cell base station. We agree
that this portion supports the Examiner’s position. Ans. 18.
We further find that Appellant’s disclosure, as well as the arguments
in the Brief, actually supports the Examiner’s position. Appellant’s
disclosure indicates that “all type [sic] of cellular network technologies keep
record of current ‘Cell ID’ of their connected subscribers.” Spec. 12:13-14.
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief indicate the well known aspects of a Cell
ID parameter “as a unique number assigned to represent an individual cell”,
and that a mobile station connected to a cell would know or have access to
its respective Cell ID number, thereby providing the mobile station with
“knowledge of its corresponding base station and cell location.” Br. 14.
Appellant further recognizes that, since the cell under which the mobile
station is operating is known, “the mobile station can be identified as being
located within an estimated location of the cell’s active coverage area.” Br.
14-15.
Further, contrary to Appellant’s contentions, we find that the
Examiner has provided a valid articulated line of reasoning with a rational
underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness with respect to all of
the appealed claims (Ans. 6, 19). KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). In particular, we agree with the Examiner that the
Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614

5
utilization of Cell ID as a location parameter in a prayer notification time
table, such as taught by the collective teachings of Rankin and Hasebe,,
would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan and would have
yielded predictable results (Ans. 6, 19). When there are a finite number of
known identified, predictable solutions (e.g., location determination by Cell
ID, time-of-arrival triangulation, GPS, etc.), ordinarily skilled artisans would
have had a good reason to pursue the known options within their grasp.
KSR, at 421. We find that in this case, these known options would have
included the use of a Cell ID location determining scheme and associated
parameters as admitted by Appellant and disclosed by Rankin (col. 5, ll. 56-
59), rather than the GPS and triangulation location determining schemes of
Rankin and Hasebe.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 12, 22, and 25 is sustained. For similar reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 13-21, 23,
24, and 26. While Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 13-21, 23, 24, and 26 separately, the arguments rely on the alleged
deficiencies of Rankin and Hasebe in explicitly disclosing the use of a Cell
ID location determining scheme, which arguments we found unpersuasive as
discussed supra.

Appeal 2010-010441
Application 10/788,614

6
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 12-26 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc