11428281 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte van Diggelen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2016

11428281 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

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. 11/428,281 06/30/2006 Frank van Diggelen 3875.2110003 3784 49579 7590 07/29/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CUONG H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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 FRANK VAN DIGGELEN ____________ Appeal 2014-003980 Application 11/428,281 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Frank van Diggelen (Appellant)1 seeks review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Knutson (US 6,747,983 B1, issued June 8, 2004) and Shroyer (US 6,160,988, issued Dec. 12, 2000). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Global Locate, Inc. as the real party in interest at the time of the filing of the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. 3. As of October 19, 2015, the assignee of record is Broadcom Corporation. Appeal 2014-003980 Application 11/428,281 2 BACKGROUND The disclosed subject matter “relates to a method and apparatus for delivering satellite data to GPS receivers to enable a GPS receiver to acquire and lock on to GPS satellite signals in low signal strength environments (e.g., indoors).” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 25, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below, with emphasis added: 25. A non-transitory computer readable media storing a plurality of computer-executable instructions wherein said plurality of computer- executable instructions comprise: receiving each of a plurality of packetized- satellite-navigation-data streams from a plurality of reference stations; removing duplicate satellite-navigation-data streams within said plurality of packetized satellite- navigation-data streams so as to generate a combined packet stream; and sending said combined packet stream. DISCUSSION Independent claim 25 recites, in relevant part, “removing duplicate satellite-navigation-data streams within said plurality of packetized satellite- navigation-data streams so as to generate a combined packet stream.” Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Addressing the limitation at issue (shown with emphasis), the Examiner stated that Knutson “may include duplicated data” but stated that Knutson does not disclose “removing duplicate data streams.” Final Act. 3 (dated April 18, 2012) (citing Knutson, Figs. 2a–d, 6). The Examiner found, however, that “Shroyer teaches that feature ‘the operator will have the option to ignore the duplicate entries or Appeal 2014-003980 Application 11/428,281 3 delete the overlapping entries’ (this proves a claimed step of removing duplicate electronic entries is disclosed[)].” Id. (quoting Shroyer, col. 14, ll. 63–64; citing Shroyer, col. 14, ll. 54–64, col. 15, ll. 25–27). We agree with Appellant (see generally Appeal Br. 8–14) that the record does not support the finding that the prior art satisfies the limitation at issue. As to the Examiner’s statement that Knutson “may include duplicated data” (Final Act. 3), we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 9) that Figures 2a through 2d and Figure 6 of Knutson do not support that statement. Further, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 9–10) that the teaching of “duplicate entries” in a database (Shroyer, col. 14, l. 64; see also id., col. 15, ll. 27–28 (“duplicate schedule entries”)) does not satisfy the recited “duplicate . . . data streams.” As demonstrated by Appellant, a “data stream” involves real- time flow of data whereas entries in a database are individual records within a larger file capable of certain operations. See Reply Br. 3–4 (discussing definitions in the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 5th ed. 2002); see also Appeal Br. 10 (“In stark contrast to Shroyer’s database entries, a data stream contains information packets whose real-time arrival is not . . . under the control of the receiving system.” (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner responds that “satellite data streams” are “simply computer-readable data.” Ans. 3. With this, the Examiner appears to take the position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered both the duplicate entries in a database (in Shroyer) and the recited “duplicate . . . data streams” as “computer-readable data” and thus, would have considered the claimed invention obvious in view of Shroyer. For the reasons above, however, we agree with Appellant that this position “erroneously equates the two disparate concepts of ‘data streams’ and Appeal 2014-003980 Application 11/428,281 4 ‘database entries.’” Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Although both of these concepts generally involve “computer-readable data,” that similarity alone does not support the conclusion of obviousness here. See id. at 3 (contending that this “characterization does not capture the considerable differences between these two types of data”). Moreover, we agree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 12–13) that because Shroyer’s teachings of duplicate entries in a database do not satisfy the recited “duplicate . . . data streams,” Shroyer’s teachings of deleting duplicate entries (Shroyer, col. 14, ll. 61–64; col. 15, ll. 26–28) do not satisfy the limitation at issue. The Examiner responds that “the use of [a] computer to one of skill in the art includes a very familiar task of ‘remove’/‘delete’, including ‘Removing Duplicate . . . computer-data.’” Ans. 3. The Examiner relies on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary as defining “delete” as “to eliminate text, a file, or part of a document with the intention of removing the information permanently.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Examiner states that “delete” “has been a widely used function.” Id. (emphasis omitted). As noted by Appellant, however, these findings do not relate to data streams and do not demonstrate that Shroyer’s teachings regarding database entries would be understood to apply to data streams. See Reply Br. 4 (stating that the use of the definition of “delete” “confirms Appellant’s argument that deletion of a database entry (or deletion of an MS-DOS file) has no relevance to the recited ‘removing duplicate . . . data streams’”). Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s statement that, based on these findings, Knutson and Shroyer “would suggest a very familiar task of house- keeping[] such as Removing Duplicate . . . satellite Data Streams.” Ans. 3. Appeal 2014-003980 Application 11/428,281 5 For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25, or the rejection of claims 26–32, which depend from claim 25. DECISION We REVERSE the decision to reject claims 25–32. REVERSED