Ex Parte Syrjarinne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

13141302 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/141,302 06/21/2011
10928 7590
Locke Lord LLP
IP Docket Department
3 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-2101
05/26/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
J ari S yrj arinne
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1004289.620US 4151
EXAMINER
XIA,XUYANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ptopatentcommunication @lockelord.com
Shopkins@lockelord.com
J medina@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARI SYRJARINNE and AL TTI JOKINEN
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--13, 15, 16, 19-24, and 28. Claims 3,
14, 17, 18, and 25-27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "the field of location
services, and more particularly to the provision of one or more of a plurality
of available location services" (Spec. 1, 11. 5-7).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus comprising one or more processors
configured to:
provide a user with location service selection criterion
signalling, the location service selection criterion signalling
representing one or more performance characteristics of a
portable electronic device and allowing for user selection of one
or more differing types of location service, each of the differing
types of location service for the provision of location related
data for location determination for the portable electronic
device;
receive user selection criterion signalling representative
of user input responsive to said location service selection
criterion signalling; and
allow for use of the user selection criterion signalling to
select one or more of the differing types of location service in
the provision of location related data for location determination
for the portable electronic device.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Lindell
Nguyen
Bab bar
US 2002/0039892 Al
US 7,245,913 Bl
US 7,212,810 B2
2
Apr. 4, 2002
July 17, 2007
May 1, 2007
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
Vitikainen
Nowak
Fok
Tsai
US 2004/0172191 Al
US 2006/0030337 Al
US 2008/0293436 Al
US 2007 /0265775 Al
Sept. 2, 2004
Feb.9,2006
Nov. 27, 2008
Nov. 15, 2007
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10---13, 15, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Lindell and Nguyen.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lindell, Nguyen, and Babbar.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lindell, Nguyen, and Vitikainen.
Claims 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lindell, Nguy en, and Nowak.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lindell, Nguyen, Fok, and Tsai.
IL ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Lindell and Nguyen teaches or would have suggested one
or more processors configured to "provide a user with location service
selection criterion signalling ... allowing for user selection of one or more
differing types of location service, each of the differing types of location
service for the provision of location related data for location determination
for the portable electronic device" and to "allow for use of the user selection
criterion signalling to select one or more of the different types of location
service in the provision of location related data for location determination
for the portable electronic device" (claim 1) (emphases added).
3
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
Ill. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Lindell
1. Lindell discloses that a "particular access network and service
can thereafter be selected from the available access networks based on user
preferences" (i-f 12). "The choice of which access network to use may be
based on a number of factors including the availability of the access
network, the link quality, bit rate, costs, battery consumption, and the like,"
among others (i-f 7). Available access networks include cellular networks,
direct wireless networks including wireless LAN, satellite networks, and the
like (i-f 6). User preferences "can subsequently be used by the network and
service selector 210 to select one of the available access networks 1-n to be
used by the requesting application 212" (i-f 33).
Nguyen
2. Nguyen discloses that
where the network or mobile device 12 is equipped with
GPS ... capability or other location based capabilities,
the user may select for the mobile device 12 to use a
specific network whenever the mobile device 12 is within
a certain distance of the user's home. Thus the user, via
the user interface 58, may modify the network selection
preference to control the circumstances under which the
mobile device 12 will use or switch to [different]
networks.
(col. 8, 11. 27--42).
4
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants argue "[n]either Lindell nor Nguyen teach any of the
claimed features 'for location determination' and ... that both references are
directed towards solving a different problem of selecting a network for
communications" (App. Br. 12). In particular, Appellants contend "Lindell
does not teach that it is 'location services for the provision of location
related data for location determination' which are selected" (App. Br. 13),
and Nguyen clearly relates "to selecting a 'particular network for service,'
i.e., communications services," wherein Nguyen "merely discusses that the
selection of a communications network may be based on the user's current
location" (App. Br. 14). Further, according to Appellants, no choice is given
in Nguyen of "different types of location determination service by using
location service selection criterion signalling" as presently claimed (id.).
In discussing the combination of Lindell and Nguy en, Appellants
further argue that both references "are silent regarding location
determination and neither contains any relevant teaching to lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention" (App. Br. 15). Appellants
explain, according to claim 1, a user "might indicate that they wish to
establish/ determine his current location. The apparatus can then 'provide a
user with location service selection criterion signalling ... ' where 'the
location service selection criterion signalling represent[ s] one or more
performance characteristics of a portable electronic device ... " (App. Br. 17).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
5
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter, we must give the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 defines "each of the differing types of
location service" as being for "the provision of location related data for
location determination for the portable electronic device" (emphasis added).
A review of the Specification does not reveal any specific definition that
limits the definition of a "location service" inconsistent with that provided in
the claim language itself, but mere examples of location services. For
example, GPS and WLAN location beacons, as well as cell-based services
are given as exemplary location services (Spec. 1, 11. 26-30; Spec. 16, 11. 19-
22).
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Lindell discloses "the user
enters user preferences ... used by the network and service selector 210 to
select one of the available access networks 1-n to be used which is one of the
different types of location service" (Ans. 20-21; FF 1). In view of the broad
but reasonable interpretation of "location services," we find that the
Examiner was not in error in finding Lindell discloses and suggests selection
among a plurality of location services, as required by claim 1.
Similarly, claim 1 merely defines "location service selection criterion
signaling" as "representing one or more performance characteristics of the
portable electronic device." A review of the Specification discloses that
selection criterion signalling can include power consumption, accuracy, and
monetary cost, among other factors (Spec. 14, 11. 9-19). We agree with the
Examiner's finding that in Lindell, "the network and service selector 210
6
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
can report the selection information 308 back to the ... application ... to be
configured ... to operate within ... parameters of the selected access
network and services" (Ans. 21-23). In particular, Lindell discloses that
user preferences can include preferred networks, bit rates, QoS
requirements, and pricing preferences (FF 1 ). We therefore find no error in
the Examiner's reliance on Lindell to disclose and suggest "location service
selection criterion signalling" as required by claim 1.
With respect to Appellants' arguments that Nguyen is not related to
location services for location determination, we find the Examiner's reliance
on Nguyen is not misplaced. Nguyen discloses that when a mobile device is
"equipped with GPS ... capability or other location based capabilities, the
user may select for the mobile device 12 to use a specific network whenever
the mobile device 12 is within a certain distance of the user's home" (FF 2).
We agree with the Examiner's reliance on Nguyen to disclose and suggest a
"location service in the provision of location related data for location
determination for the portable electronic device" (emphasis added). Given
the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, wherein a mobile
communications network may provide location services, we agree that this
portion of Nguyen discloses and suggests that the GPS and the "other
location based capabilities," such as a selected communications network,
may provide location determination for the portable electronic device (FF 2).
Although Appellants argue "the location service selection criterion
signalling could therefore represent a series of questions to the user that
represent the implications of these services" (App. Br. 18), such argument is
not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 1. In
particular, the language of claim 1 only requires that the "location service
7
Appeal2014-008999
Application 13/141,302
selection criterion signalling represent[] one or more performance
characteristics ... allowing for user selection of one or more differing types
of location service." We therefore find no error in the Examiner's reliance
on Lindell, which discloses and suggests the user's ability to select from
among a plurality of performance characteristics used to determine which
network with which to connect (FF 1).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we find no error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 over Lindell and Nguy en.
Appellants do not provide separate arguments in the Appeal Brief
directed to Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 4--8, 10-13, 15, and 22-24
over Lindell and Nguyen; claim 9 over Lindell, Nguyen, and Babbar; claim
16 over Lindell, Nguyen, and Vitikainen; claims 19-21 over Lindell,
Nguyen, and Nowak; or claim 28 over Lindell, Nguyen, Fok, and Tsai under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we also affirm these rejections.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4--13, 15, 16, 19-
24, and 28 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8