Ex Parte Spain

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2012

10668634 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2012)

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