Ex Parte SpainDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 19, 201210668634 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte DAVID STEVENSON SPAIN ____________________ Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 2 Appellant invokes our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from final rejections of claims 1-28 (Final Action 3-14). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on April 17, 2012. We affirm. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant claims a method to estimate the location of a wireless terminal based on a received signal strength at the wireless terminal that is deduced from a known transmission parameter (see generally Spec. ¶¶ [0015-16], [0022-26]). Claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: deducing a signal strength of a first signal, RD, at a wireless terminal based on a transmit strength of a second signal, Tu, that is transmitted by said wireless terminal; and estimating the location of said wireless terminal based on said signal strength of said first signal, RD. Rejections The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:1 Dupray US 6,249,252 B1 June 19, 2001 Okanoue US 2003/0064733 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 Chen US 6,658,258 B1 Dec. 2, 2003 Rotstein US 2004/0057507 A1 Mar. 25, 2004 1 Effective filing dates for cited prior art precede Appellant’s earliest effective filing date and are not at issue. Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 3 The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected: 1. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 20-23, 25, and 26 as unpatentable over Rotstein and Chen (Final Action 4-10); 2. Claims 5, 14, 19, and 24 as unpatentable over Rotstein and Dupray (Final Action 10-11); 3. Claims 8, 17, and 27 as unpatentable over Rotstein, Chen, and Okanoue (Final Action 11-12); and 4. Claims 9, 18, and 28 as unpatentable over Rotstein, Dupray, and Okanoue (Final Action 12-14). Appellant’s Contention Appellant asserts that Rotstein alone or in combination with other references fails to teach or suggest deducing a first signal strength at a wireless terminal based on a second signal transmitted strength from the wireless terminal (Br. 20).2 Appellant asserts this purported Rotstein deficiency as the premise for arguing that all rejected claims are patentable (Br. 24-25). Arguments made by Appellant have been considered. Arguments not made in the Appeal Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Issue Did the Examiner err under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in concluding that Rotstein alone or in combination with Chen teaches or suggests the claim 1 recited “deducing a signal strength of a first signal, RD, at a wireless terminal 2 Reference is made throughout this opinion to the Appeal Brief filed August 25, 2008 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 4, 2010. No Reply Brief was filed. Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 4 based on a transmit strength of a second signal, TU, that is transmitted by said wireless terminal”? ANALYSIS Rejection over Rotstein and Chen We disagree with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting argued claim 1. Based on our review of the record, we adopt as our own (1) the Examiner’s findings and reasons set forth for claim 1 in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Action 4; Ans. 3-4), and (2) the Examiner’s reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 14-20). We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Rotstein and Chen renders claim 1 obvious. In concurring, it is noted, for example, that the Examiner responds to Appellant contending Rotstein is deficient by reproducing the disputed claim 1 limitations (Ans. 14) and follows with particular identification that the recited “[d]educe is understood as reaching a conclusion by reasoning, to infer from a general principal[:] infer is to conclude from evidence” (Ans. 15 (emphases omitted)). This identified understanding complies with accepted ordinary usage, namely deduce is defined “2: to determine by deduction; specf: to infer from a general principle” (WEBSTER’S NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 295 (G. & C. Merriam 1973)). The Examiner also “notes that as claimed . . . a first signal received by [a wireless terminal] can be deduced based on a second signal transmitted by the [wireless terminal]. → RD can be found by using TU” (Ans. 19). We find this interpretation to be correct because it comports with ordinary term usage in light of the Specification Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 5 and is reasonably broad. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner continues by providing identifications from Rotstein’s disclosures (Ans. 15-12). The identified disclosures teach substitution of link parameters that the Examiner reasons show received signal power strength at a wireless terminal (PRX) “can be estimated or deduced based on the signal transmitted by the wireless terminal →PmTX” (Ans. 20). Appellant has not responded to these Examiner-identified findings from Rotstein or the reasoning premised on the findings. Based on this record, we find the Examiner identified prior art disclosures support the identified reasoned conclusion that Rotstein teaches the claim 1 disputed limitations. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 and also will sustain the rejection of the other independent claims 10 and 20 that Appellant asserts are patentable for the reasons argued for claim 1 (Br. 24- 25). Further, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 7, 11-13, 15, 16, 21-23, 25, and 26 that respectively depend from claims 1, 10, and 20 and are not separately argued (Br. 24-25). Rejections over Rotstein, Chen, Dupray, and Okanoue Appellant asserts claims 5, 8, 9, 14, 17-19, 24, 27, and 28 are patentable because their respective independent base claims 1, 10, and 20 are patentable for reasons addressed supra (Br. 25). We find Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 20 unavailing and, therefore, also find Appellant’s assertions unavailing that their dependent claims 5, 8, 9, 14, 17-19, 24, 27, and 28 are patentable. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejections of these claims. Appeal 2010-008613 Application 10/668,634 6 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 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)(v). AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation