Ex Parte TRAUTENBERG

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2018

13524227 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/524,227 06/15/2012
7055 7590 05/29/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans L. TRAUTENBERG
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.
P42042 2236
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHUONG P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS L. TRAUTENBERG
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Technology Center 3600
Before WILLIAM A. CAPP, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to unpatentable
subject matter;2 claims 1--4 and 7 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Moudrak, Timing Aspects of GPS-Galileo Interoperability: Challenges
and Solutions, 36th Annual Precise Time Interval (PTTI) Meeting, 279--92
(2004); and claims 5, 6, and 8-20 over Moudrak and Horkin (US 5,619,211,
iss. Apr. 8, 1997). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Astrium GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.
2 A rejection of claims 7-20 under Section 101 is withdrawn. Ans. 1 7.
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention relates to satellite navigation systems. Spec.
,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for improving a combined use of a plurality of
different satellite navigation systems, in which each of the
plurality of different satellite navigation systems includes a
constellation of at least one satellite, the method comprising:
broadcasting from each satellite of the constellation of a
first satellite navigation system the clock models for all
satellites of the constellation of a second satellite navigation
system.
OPINION
Unpatentable Subject Matter
Appellant argues claims 1-6 as a group. Appeal Br. 10-13. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Supreme Court has set forth "a framework for distinguishing
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)).
According to the Supreme Court's framework, we must first determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts. Id. This
first, or "abstract idea" step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the "focus
of the claimed advance over the prior art" to determine if the claim's
"character as a whole" is directed to excluded subject matter. Affinity Labs
of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed Cir. 2016).
If the first step is satisfied, we proceed to the second or "inventive
concept" step. Id. The "inventive concept" step requires us to look with
2
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine
"whether ... they identify an 'inventive concept' in the application of the
ineligible matter" to which the claim is directed. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court
characterizes the second step of the analysis as a search for an element or
combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).
With respect to the first step, the Examiner determines that the claims
are directed to the abstract idea of organizing, storing, and transmitting
information. Final Action 2.
With respect to the second step of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the
Examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the abstract idea amount( s) to no more than mere instructions to
implement the idea on a computer that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry and to
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use (i.e. intending to be used to
improve a combined use of a plurality of different satellite navigation
systems). Ans. 3--4. 3
3 "Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide
meaningful limitation( s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to
significantly more than the judicial exception." Id.
3
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 10-12. Appellant characterizes the claim as directed to a method
implemented between a plurality of different satellite navigation systems, in
which each of the plurality of different navigation systems includes a
constellation of at least one satellite. Id. at 13. Appellant contends that this
concept is distinct from the Examiner's characterization of merely
organizing, storing, and transmitting information. Id.
In response, the Examiner analogizes the abstract idea in the instant
case to that of Affinity Labs, supra. Ans. 18. The Examiner states that, as in
Affinity Labs, the instant claim merely relates to broadcasting signals and
information in the form of clock models. Id.
In reply, Appellant analogizes the instant case to Enfish, supra. 4 "In
the present application and similar to the ultimate decision in Enfzsh, the
claims do not merely perform a known task in a conventional way, but
instead are directed to improving the operation of the satellite navigation
system." Reply Br. 6.
We agree with the Examiner's position that the invention is directed
to an abstract idea. Information as such is intangible and hence abstract.
See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Collecting information and analyzing it
by mathematical algorithms is similarly abstract. Id. at 1354. Merely
presenting the results of the collection and analysis of information, without
more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an
ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Id. In the instant case, the
4 Appellant provides no legal reporter citation for the Enfish decision and
repeatedly and erroneously refers to it as a "recent Supreme Court decision."
Appeal Br. 16, 17; Reply Br. 6, 7.
4
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
"presentation" of the analyzed information is via "broadcasting." Claims
App., claim 1. Thus, the recited step of broadcasting clock models of a first
system to a second system is an abstract idea. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at
1258 (information distribution through signal broadcast is an abstract and
familiar concept). Although being confronted by the Examiner's reasoning
regarding broadcasting information as an abstract idea in light of Affinity
Labs, Appellant makes no attempt to discuss or distinguish Affinity Labs.
See generally Reply Br.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. Satellite navigation
systems are well-known to measure elapsed time between a satellite
transmission and its reception by a user/receiver device ( e.g., an automobile
Garmin TM device). Geographic position is then calculated by converting
signal transmission elapsed time to distance and then resolving such
distances from a plurality of satellites. The issue addressed by Appellant is
that the United States' Navstar-GPS system uses a different time standard
than, for example, the Russian GLONASS system. Spec. ,r,r 3--4.
Essentially, the idea underlying Appellant's invention is for the various
satellite navigation systems to share information about each other's clock
system through broadcast distribution of the information. The
shared/combined information is then broadcast to users, so that a
user/receiver device can navigate using information from satellites that are
associated with a plurality of different navigation systems.
Satellite navigation technology is known. Spec. ,r,r 3, 4; Horkin,
Abstract; Moudrak 279. The concept of converting data from one
information system so that it can be understood and used by another system
is similarly old and familiar and quite abstract. Merely limiting the idea of
5
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
converting and transmitting data to a particular technological environment,
such as satellite navigation, does not render the idea any less abstract. See
Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1259 ("merely limiting the field of use of the
abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not
render the claims any less abstract"). Here, the claim's character as a whole
is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2 of the Mayol Alice analysis, Appellant argues
that the claim improves the functionality of the underlying computer/
analysis and, as a result, adds "significantly more" so as to transform the
claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant points to
claim 1 as improving a combined use of a plurality of different satellite
navigation systems. Id. at 18. Appellant argues that "the receiver and the
system result in the ability of each satellite navigation system to broadcast
clock models for the satellites of the other system to increase the precision of
a position solution with a combined use of the different satellite systems."
Id. at 19.
Id.
Appellant submits that the broadcasting of clock model data for
all satellites of a second satellite system from each satellite in a
first satellite system would not have been reasonably
understood by those ordinarily skilled in the art as a routine or
conventional activity known in the industry, as alleged by the
Examiner.
In response, the Examiner reiterates that the claim does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception because "the additional elements amount to no more
than appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
6
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
previously known to the pertinent industry as stated in the rejection above."
Ans. 18.
In reply, Appellant insists that the claims do not merely perform a
known task in a conventional way, but instead "improve the functionality of
the underlying computer/apparatus." Reply Br. 7. Appellant cites Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) as an example
of purportedly analogous technology that is patent eligible subject matter.
Id. at 10.
However, Thales does not apply to the case before us. The Thales
court determined that a particular configuration of inertial sensors was not,
in the first instance, directed an abstract idea. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1349.
Thus, Thales did not even address the issue of whether it involved
"something more" under step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis. Id. at 1346.
Otherwise, Appellant's arguments under step 2 of the Mayo/Alice
analysis framework are off the mark because they persistently refer to the
step 1 abstract idea itself as the "something more" under step 2. Essentially,
Appellant argues that, because implementation of the abstract idea results in
an improved navigation system, the claim presents patentable subject matter.
This argument fails. Even if claims are groundbreaking, innovative, or
brilliant, that is not enough for eligibility. See Ass 'n for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). The claims
here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in the ineligible
subject matter. See SAP America, Inc., v. InvestPic, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2018
WL 2207254, *1 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018). "[A] claim for a new abstract
idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus
distinct from demonstrating§ 102 novelty." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
7
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(same for§ 103 obviousness).
Here, Appellant confuses step 1 with step 2 of the analysis. Claim 1
contains a single step- "broadcasting" information. Claims App., claim 1.
The information that is broadcast is data related to "clock models." Id. The
data is broadcast "from each satellite" of a first navigation system. Id. The
data relates to "all satellites" of a second navigation system. Id. This is the
abstract idea itself. However, the question now before us turns on whether
actual implementation of the abstract idea involves "something more." We
agree with the Examiner that it does not. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 23 5 8 ( citing
Mayo, 566 U.S at 78) (simply appending conventional steps, specified at a
high level of generality, to a well-known method is not enough to supply an
inventive concept).
Appellant's Specification discloses satellites 10 and 12 that belong to
a first navigation system and satellites 14 and 16 that belong to a second
navigation system. Spec. p. 8, ,r 25. Monitoring stations 22 and 24
communicate with the satellites via "communication connections." Id. The
monitoring stations also communicate with a central unit 26 that
"coordinates" the broadcast of clock model data. Id. Appellant also
discloses a receiver system 28 that has a receiver unit that can receive
navigation signals from the satellites. Id. p. 10, ,r 29. The receiver has an
antenna and also has a signal processor for correlating and decoding signals
from the satellites. Id. The processor is configured by firmware that
calculates the position, time, etc. based on data transmitted by the satellites.
8
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Id. The processor "takes into account" the clock models contained in the
data from the respective satellite systems. Id.
We have reviewed Appellant's Specification. The various pieces of
equipment and their configuration are described at a very high level of
generality. The Specification is written in a manner that presumes that a
person of ordinary skill in the art is already familiar with what equipment to
use and how the equipment should be configured and programmed. A patent
applicant is required to describe an invention in "full, clear, concise, and
exact terms." 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). A specification demonstrates the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it
describes them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe them
with particularity to satisfy section 112(a). Furthermore, a patent
specification "shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing
out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
inventor regards as the invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Thus, where, as
here, a patent applicant fails to describe and claim implementation of an
abstract idea that includes an inventive concept beyond that which is routine
and conventional, the Examiner and the Board cannot be expected to do
more than recognize such absence.
Under the second prong of the Alice/Mayo test, we have considered
whether the claim elements, both individually and "as an ordered
combination," "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. We are not persuaded that using
conventional computer technology to coordinate clock model data between
navigation systems and using conventional radio transmission technology to
9
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
broadcast the coordinated clock signals satisfies the "significantly more"
criteria under the second prong of Alice/Mayo. Id. at 2359.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's
Section 101 rejection of claims 1---6.
Claim 1
Unpatentability of Claims 1-4 and 7
over Moudrak
The Examiner finds that Moudrak discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except that each satellite of the Galileo constellation broadcasts a
GPS-Galileo time offset. Final Action 4. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention was made for Moudrak to broadcast from each satellite of
the constellation of a first satellite navigation system (Galileo) the clock
models for all satellites of the constellation of a second satellite navigation
system (GPS). Id. at 4--5. According to the Examiner, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have done this because it improves the reliability in the
combined use the navigation systems. Id. at 5.
Appellant traverses the Examiner's rejection by arguing that the actual
broadcasting of clock model information in the claimed invention is
patentably distinguishable from broadcasting a time offset as taught by
Moudrak. Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues that Moudrak merely broadcasts
a "prediction" of an actual time offset. Id. at 23-24.
[B]ecause GGTO, as described by MOUDRAK, is merely a
prediction, MOUDRAK discloses that there are errors that
require resolving, and additional errors arise due to calibration
errors in calculating the GGTO. Thus, this derivation of other
clock models in MOUDRAK is fraught with errors, which the
10
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
claimed embodiments obviate by broadcasting the actual clock
models of the other system.
Id. at 24. Appellant contends that Moudrak merely describes the known art
that Appellant's claimed embodiments sought to improve. Id. at 25.
In response, the Examiner states that Moudrak broadcasts its own
clock model, Galileo System Time or "GST", and also broadcasts a GPS-
Galileo Time Offset, which, according to the Examiner, is a GPS clock
model because it provides an offset between its own clock model and the
GPS system clock model. Ans. 19. "By knowing a clock model of one
navigation system, knowing the time offset between a navigation system and
another navigation system basically results in the clock model of another
navigation system." Id.
In reply, Appellant argues that the offset of Moudrak is not really a
"clock model." Reply Br. 12. Appellant reiterates that Moudrak does not
teach or suggest broadcasting "the clock modef' of the GPS satellites from
Galileo satellites. Id. at 13.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Appellant points to
a difference between Moudrak's broadcasting a clock model offset and
broadcasting the actual clock model of the second navigation system. What
Appellant fails to do, however, is explain why this difference is a non-
obvious difference over the prior art. The obviousness statute contemplates
that an invention may be unpatentable over the prior art despite differences
between the prior art and the claimed invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see
also CRFD Research, Inc. v. Mata!, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(PT AB reversed for failing to find obviousness over a single, non-
anticipating reference). The question before us is whether the differences
are such that the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to
11
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. We answer that question in the
affinnative.
Appellant's argument, in essence, is that is the claimed invention is a
patentable improvement over Moudrak because broadcasting actual clock
model data results in improved performance over broadcasting predicted
clock model data based on an offset. This argument does not reflect the
correct standard for an obviousness analysis as it is well settled that
improved performance, alone, is not sufficient. See In re Huang, 100 F .3d
135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("even though applicant's modification results in
great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable
if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art").
Moudrak demonstrates that it was known for a navigation system to
navigate based on data broadcast from a plurality of different satellite
systems. Moudrak merely discloses an alternative means for accounting for
the differences in the clock models used by the different systems. By
broadcasting actual, rather than predicted, clock model data, Appellant
teaches what, at best, may be considered a predictable variation of the prior
art. However, it is well settled that when a work is available in one field of
endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of
it, either in the same field or a different one. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. Id. Here, Appellant
presents neither evidence nor persuasive technical reasoning that
implementation of the claimed invention requires more than ordinary skill.
Indeed, as we have previously discussed under the Section 101 grounds of
rejection, Appellant's Specification describes implementation of the
12
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
invention at such a high level of generality that it presumes that it can be
accomplished using no more than ordinary skill.
We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 1 over
Moudrak.
Claims 2-4
Appellant's arguments for the separate patentability of claims 2--4
largely amount to a recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion
that the elements are not met by the prior art. Appeal Br. 29--31. This is not
sufficient to set forth a separate argument for patentability of a claim under
our rules. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points
out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim"); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.3 7 requires more than recitation of the claim elements
and a naked assertion that the elements are not found in the prior art).
As to claim 3, Appellant asserts Moudrak "does not disclose[] two
different satellite navigation systems," so Moudrak cannot be understood to
suggest application to the Galileo system and the NA VSTAR-GPS system.
Appeal Br. 30. We, however, agree with the Examiner's finding that
Moudrak discloses the two satellite navigation systems recited in claim 3.
See Final Action 5.
We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claims 2--4.
Claim 7
Claim 7 is an independent claim that is substantially similar in scope
to claim 1. Claims App. In traversing the rejection, Appellant essentially
just repeats the same arguments that we previously considered in connection
with the unpatentability rejection of claim 1 and found unpersuasive and
13
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
which we find equally unpersuasive here. Thus, for the reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1 above, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the
unpatentability rejection of claim 1.
Claim 11
Unpatentability of Claims 5, 6, and 8-20
over Moudrak and Horkin 5
The Examiner finds that Horkin discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for receiving clock models for all satellites of a second
navigation system. Final Action 12. The Examiner relies on Moudrak, as
modified in accordance with the rejection of claim 1, as disclosing clock
models from two satellite navigation systems. Id. at 13. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine Horkin and Moudrak to
achieve the claimed invention. According to the Examiner, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have done this to improve the accuracy of the
location determination. Id.
5 The rejection of claims 5, 6, 8-10, and 15-20 cites Moudrak as the primary
reference and Horkin as the secondary reference. Final Action 7. The
rejection of claims 11-14 cites Horkin as the primary reference and
Moudrak as the secondary reference, i.e., the order of the references is
reversed in the rejection of claims 11-14. Id. at 12. We view this reversal
of order of Moudrak and Horkin as insignificant. In re Bush, 296 F .2d 491,
496 (CCP A 1961) ("where a rejection is predicated on two references each
containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to the applicant,
we deem it to be of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that
the rejection is stated to be on A in view of B instead of on B in view of A,
or to term one reference primary and the other secondary.")
14
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
In traversing the rejection, Appellant offers a naked assertion that
Horkin and Moudrak do not teach or suggest the claimed invention. Appeal
Br. 40-42. For example, "there is no discernible teaching in the applied art
suggesting a modification of RORK.IN in view of MOUDRAK that would
have been understood to have rendered obvious the claimed embodiments of
at least independent claim 11." Id. at 41.
Horkin is directed to an aircraft navigation system and associated air
traffic control system. Horkin, col. 1, 1. 7---col. 2, 1. 5. As found by the
Examiner, Horkin discloses the use of two different satellite constellations.
See Final Action 12 (citing to multiple Figures and passages from Horkin).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Horkin's aircraft
GPS device 82 (NA V DATA receiver) corresponds to the "receiver" of
claims 11 and 12. Horkin, col. 6, 1. 18. As discussed previously in
connection with claim 1, Moudrak discloses navigation using information
from two different navigation satellite systems. The Appellant's abbreviated
and conclusory arguments do not apprise us of error with respect to the
rejection of claim 11.
We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 11.
Claims 12-14
As with claims 2--4, Appellant's arguments for the separate
patentability of claims 12-14 amounts to a recitation of the claim elements
and a naked assertion that the elements are not met by the prior art. Appeal
Br. 42--44. As previously discussed, this is not sufficient to set forth a
separate argument forpatentability. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability
rejection of claims 12-14.
15
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 5 depends directly from claim 2 and indirectly from claim 1.
Claims App. Claim 6 depends directly from claim 5 and indirectly from
claim 1. Id. The Examiner relies on Horkin as disclosing the limitations of
claims 5 and 6. Final Action 10.
As with claims 2--4 and 12-14, Appellant's arguments for the
separately patentability of claims 5 and 6 amounts to a recitation of the
respective claims and a naked assertion that the claim elements are not met
by the prior art. Appeal Br. 36. For the same reasons, we sustain the
unpatentability rejection of claim 6. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652
F.3d at 1357.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and adds the limitation: "further
comprising at least one first monitoring station of a first ground segment of
the first satellite navigation system that is structured and arranged to monitor
the broadcasting of clock models of the at least one first satellite." Claims
App. The Examiner relies on Horkin as disclosing a ground segment. Final
Action 11.
As with claims 2---6 and 12-14, Appellant's arguments for the
separately patentability of claim 8 amounts to a recitation of the claim and a
naked assertion that the claim elements are not met by the prior art. Appeal
Br. 36-37. We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 8.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and adds the limitation: "further
comprising at least one second monitoring station of the second ground
16
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
segment of the second satellite navigation system that is structured and
arranged to monitor the broadcasting of the clock models of the at least one
second satellite." Claims App. The Examiner concedes that Moudrak and
Horkin do not explicitly disclose at least one first monitoring station of a
first ground segment of the first satellite navigation system and at least one
second monitoring station of the second ground segment of the second
satellite navigation system for monitoring the broadcasting of clock models
of the at least one satellite in the respective satellite navigation system and to
coordinate the broadcast of the clock models via the at least one first and
second monitoring stations. Final Action 11. The Examiner does find,
however, that the combination of Moudrak and Horkin suggests a master
base station as the monitoring station that monitors the broadcasting of clock
models of a satellite in each constellation and coordinates the broadcast of
the clock models. Id. (citing Horkin, col. 7, 11. 5-14, col. 9, 11. 23-35, col. 9,
1. 60-col. 10, 1. 9). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
utilize different monitoring stations for the different satellite navigation
systems as claimed. Id.
In traversing the rejection, Appellant concedes that Horkin discloses
transmitting navigation data from a satellite to a ground station and
correcting an on-board clock. Appeal Br. 32-33. As with claims 2---6, 8,
and 12-14, Appellant's arguments for the separately patentability of claim 9
amounts to a recitation of the claim and a naked assertion that the claim
elements are not met by the prior art. Appeal Br. 37. For reasons previously
given, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of claim 9.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
17
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and adds the limitation: "further
comprising a central unit structured and arranged to control the at least one
first monitoring station and the at least one second monitoring station and to
coordinate the broadcast of the clock models via the at least one first and
second monitoring stations." Claims App. The Examiner relies on the same
findings of fact and conclusions of obviousness for the rejection of claims 9
and 10. Final Action 11.
Appellant's traversal of the rejection of claim 10 suffers from the
same infirmity that we identified in connection with the rejection of claims
2--4, 8, 9, and 12-14. We sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claim 10 for essentially the same reasons. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv);
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Claim 15
With respect to independent claim 15, the Examiner finds that
claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as with claims 7-10. Final
Action 12.
In traversing the rejection, Appellant concedes that Horkin discloses
transmitting navigation data from a satellite to a ground station and
correcting an on-board clock. Appeal Br. 32-33. Appellant argues,
however, that there is no teaching of a second grounding segment
monitoring station associated with a second satellite navigation system as
claimed. Id.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. Horkin discloses ground
stations 26 that receive NA V DATA signals from GPS satellites. Horkin,
col. 5, 11. 26--40.
18
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
[M]aster clock 96 is used to periodically correct or compensate
on-board clock 76 of each satellite 40. In general, multiple base
stations 26 are provided. Of these, one base station is selected
to act as master base station 26 whose clock 96 acts as the
master 10 clock for the entire base station-satellite system.
Id. at col. 7, 11. 6-11. As previously discussed, Moudrak discloses
navigation using data from two different satellite navigation systems. In our
discussion of the unpatentability rejection of claim 1, we previously
explained why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to broadcast actual clock model data in lieu of predicted clock model
data based on an offset. In our view, facilitating the broadcast of the actual
clock model through a second ground station is an obvious and logical
extension of Horkin's teaching referenced above in this paragraph and
applied to a second, but different, satellite system.
As explained by the Supreme Court, the diversity of inventive pursuits
and of modem technology counsels against confining the obviousness
analysis by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the
explicit content of issued patents. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402. This follows, in
part, from the established principle that the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. Id. at 416. Accordingly, "the analysis need
not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418.
As we recognized in connection with the rejection of claim 1, there
may be differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, but such
differences do not render the subject matter, as a whole, non-obvious.
19
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
Whatever differences exist between the combination of Moudrak and Horkin
compared to the subject matter of claim 15, we are persuaded that such
differences would have been readily overcome by the exercise of no more
than ordinary skill. The absence of any detailed enabling disclosure in
Appellant's Specification strongly corroborates the Examiner's position that
achieving the claimed invention requires no more than ordinary skill. Given
the combined teachings of Moudrak and Horkin, merely adding a second
ground station to transmit clock model data amounts to no more than a
predictable variation of the prior art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (if a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's unpatentability rejection of
claim 15.
Claims 16-20
Claims 16-20 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 15. The
Examiner rejects these claims for the same reasons with claims 7-10 based
on their obvious variants in broadcasting and monitoring the clock
models/signals. Final Action 12.
As with claims 2---6, 8, 10, and 12-14, Appellant's arguments for the
separately patentability of claims 16-20 amount to a recitation of the claim
and a naked assertion that the claim elements are not met by the prior art.
Appeal Br. 38--40. For reasons previously given, we sustain the Examiner's
unpatentability rejection of claims 16-20. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv);
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
20
Appeal2017-008805
Application 13/524,227
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
21