Fangsong WANG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2019006488 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2021)

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.
15/679,101 08/16/2017 Fangsong WANG 109-00001-000-US 9765
136456 7590 05/13/2021
Rimon Law - DAVID GENERAL
2445 Faber Pl.
Suite 250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
EXAMINER
GHULAMALI, QUTBUDDIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2021 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):
Docketing.Rimonlaw@Clarivate.com
SVDocketing@Rimonlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte FANGSONG WANG, YINQING ZHAO, and HAIGANG FENG

Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final decision to reject Claims 1–22, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. Appeal Br. 15, 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We REVERSE.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real parties in interest are the named inventors.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 29,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed November 8, 2018
(“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 15, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
the Specification filed August 16, 2017 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a wireless electronic toll-collection method. See
Abstract.
CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. A system to support electronic toll collection (ETC) via
mobile communication devices, comprising:
a plurality of vehicle identity collection modules, each at
a toll collection location and configured to
broadcast wireless communication signals to cover
a mobile communication device associated with a vehicle
passing by the toll collection location over a wireless
communication network, wherein strength of the wireless
communication signals is maximized so that mobile
communication device switches and connects with the vehicle
identity collection module during a wireless cell re-selection
process;
establish a mobile communication channel with the
mobile communication device following a wireless network
communication protocol;
retrieve identification information of one or more of
the vehicle, the driver, and the mobile communication device via
the mobile communication channel;
an electronic toll collection engine running on a host,
which in operation, is configured to
determine current toll collecting location of the
vehicle based on the identification information of the vehicle,
driver, and/or the mobile communication device;
generate actual moving path of the vehicle from its
initial toll collecting location where the vehicle is first connected
to a vehicle identity collection module to its current toll
Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101

3
collecting location where the vehicle is last connected to a
vehicle identity collection module;
calculate a toll amount owed by the driver of the
vehicle based on the actual path from the initial toll collecting
location to the current toll collecting location as well toll
collection rules.

REFERENCES

Name3 Reference Date
Yohalashet US 2016/0171787 A1 June 16, 2016
Modiano US 8,456,274 B2 June 4, 2013

REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE
1. Claims 1–20, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2)
as being anticipated by Yohalashet. Final Act. 7–11.
2. Claims 21 and 22, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as obvious over Yohalashet and Modiano.
Final Act. 13.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 in light
of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded of
error. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address

3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101

4
specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider
Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief.
CLAIMS 1–20: ANTICIPATION BY YOHALASHET.
Appellant argues these claims as a group specifically over the
recitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 6. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the §
102 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims
collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein strength of the wireless
communication signals is maximized so that mobile communication device
switches and connects with the vehicle identity collection module during a
wireless cell re-selection process.” Independent Claim 14 contains
commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds this limitation is anticipated by Yohalashet’s
disclosure of a geofence within which the frequency of GPS position
measurements is increased to more accurately trace a vehicle path for
communications. Final Act. 7–8.
Appellant contends the reference “geofence, and related frequency of
GPS position measurements, does not maximize the strength of any
communication signals but rather increases the frequency of GPS position
measurements.” Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner finds “there is no quantitative definition of how the
wireless communication signal strength is maximized.” Ans. 4 (citing
Yohalashet, ¶ 63). Thus, the Examiner concludes the “broadest reasonable
interpretation of strength of ‘the wireless communication signals is
maximized’ is met when that mobile communication device switches and
Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101

5
connects with the vehicle identity collection module during a wireless cell
re-selection process.” Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s claim construction. Although the
scope of the claim term “maximized” may not be clear,5 the remainder of
this claim limitation requires the strength, i.e., amplitude, of the signal to be
such that the mobile device switches and connects with the vehicle identity
collection module. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner’s construction of
the claim limitation, which reads-out these requirements, is not reasonable.
Yohalashet relates to a frequency of measurement, but is silent as to
signal strength. Yohalashet discloses: “toll collection server 110 can
trace the path of mobile computing device 140 and/or vehicle 150 within
geofence 180 more accurately by increasing the frequency of GPS position
measurements.” Yohalashet, ¶ 74. We find no evidence that the number of
GPS position measurements per unit time, bears any relation to the
amplitude, i.e., “strength,” of a broadcast signal.
Independent Claims 1 and 14 are, therefore, not anticipated in light of
the cited reference. Dependent claims 2–13 and 15–22 inherit the
patentability of independent claims 1 and 14. In view of the foregoing, we
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

5 The claim phrase “strength . . . is maximized” may be indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) if a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand
its scope. See Ans. 4 (finding that “maximiz[ing]” the signal lacks
“quantitative definition”); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding term “minimal redundancy” indefinite
because term lacked objective boundary); MPEP § 2173.05(b)(I) (providing
examination guidance for terms of degree). However, in this Decision, we
have not evaluated whether this phrase is indefinite because the Final Action
did not reject the claim on this basis.
Appeal 2019-006488
Application 15/679,101

6
CLAIMS 21 AND 22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER YOHALASHET AND MODIANO.
Appellant contends independent Claim 1 is patentable, as discussed
above, and that Modiano fails to cure the deficiencies of Yohalashet.
Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues dependent Claims 21 and 22 are patentable
by virtue of their dependence from Claims 1 and 14. Id.
The Examiner does not apply Modiano to teach the limitations
disputed in connection with independent Claims 1 and 14, as discussed
above. Ans. 5.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
21 and 22.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 102 Yohalashet 1–20
21, 22 103 Yohalashet, Modiano 21, 22
Overall
Outcome 1–22

REVERSED