Ex Parte ABOU-RIZK et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2019

14615129 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/615,129 02/05/2015
58249 7590 01/24/2019
COOLEYLLP
ATTN: IP Docketing Department
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mitri ABOU-RIZK
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.
VERV-003/0lUS
305990-2014
1030
EXAMINER
PAN, PEILIANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2019 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):
zIPPatentDocketingMailbox US @cooley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MITRI ABOU-RIZK, BRIAN CROOK,
ERIC M. JOHNSTON, GARY NG, and CHRIS NICOTRA
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129 1
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verve Wireless, Inc.
App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed July
12, 2016; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January 3, 2017; Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed November 3, 2016; Final Office Action ("Final
Act.") mailed October 28, 2015; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed
February 5, 2015.
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "methods and apparatus for evaluating
location data, detecting spoofed location data, and/or assigning accuracy
scores to location data." Spec. ,r 105. Claims 1-24 are pending on appeal.
Claims 1 and 16 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject
matter, as reproduced below, with disputed limitations in italics and
bracketing added:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a network module configured to [ 1] receive a signal
identifying an untrusted location, the untrusted location
associated with a mobile communication device, the untrusted
location having an unknown accuracy;
a first data source comparator module implemented in at
least one of a processor or a memory, the first data source
comparator module configured to compare the untrusted location
to a database of known spoofed locations to define a first match
when the untrusted location matches a known spoofed location
from the database;
[2] a second data source comparator module
implemented in at least one of a processor or memory, the second
data source comparator module configured to compare the
untrusted location to a plurality of locations previously received
by the network module to define a second match when the
untrusted location is statistically overrepresented in the plurality
of locations; and
[3] a spoofed location detection module operably
coupled to the first data source comparator module, the second
data source comparator module, and the network module, the
spoofed location detection module configured to
[3a] determine if the untrusted location was
determined by the mobile communication device, the spoofed
location detection module configured to
[3b] determine based, at least in part, on at least
one of (1) the first match, or (2) the second match.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS and REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1-7 and 9-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Thomson et al. (US 2010/0134352 Al; published
June 3, 2010; "Thomson"), Liu et al. (US 2012/0304292 Al; published Nov.
29, 2012; "Liu"), and Varoglu (US 2014/0232593 Al; published Aug. 21,
2014). Final Act. 3-11.
(2) Claims 8 and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Thomson, Liu, Varoglu, and Martin et al. (US
2012/0309408 Al; published Dec. 6, 2012; "Martin"). Final Act. 12-16.
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and, similarly,
claim 16, the Examiner finds the combination of Thomson, Liu, and Varoglu
teaches all the claim limitations. Final Act. 3-7. In particular, the Examiner
finds Thomson teaches most aspects of Appellants' claimed apparatus
(shown in Figure 7) to determine whether satellite measurements transmitted
from a mobile device have been forged, including:
(1) "a network module . . . to receive a signal identifying an
untrusted location ... associated with a mobile ... device";
(2) "a data source comparator module . . . to compare the
untrusted location to [ a location defined by the network
module] to define a match ... "; and
(3) "a spoofed location detection module ... to determine if the
untrusted location was determined by the mobile ... device
... based, at least in part on at least the first match."
Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Thomson ,r 41 ).
3
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
Thomson's Figure 7 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration:
FIG. 7
/
Thomson's Figure 7 shows an apparatus for determining whether mobile
device 724 transmitted a forged satellite measurement.
As shown in Figure 7, location center 721 includes a GPS receiver
(not shown) to receive signals (including one or more satellite measurements
and GPS navigation data message) transmitted from mobile device 724 and
determine the location of mobile device 724 as a function of received signals
from mobile device 724. Thomson ,r 41. That is, when mobile device 724
"transmits one or more forged satellite measurements" based on a request
sent mobile device 724 to provide navigation data message from GPS
satellite 710; and circuitry (not shown) to compare (1) navigation data
message assembled from signals received from GPS satellites 710 with (2)
4
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
navigation data message received from signals transmitted from mobile
device 724 in order to determine whether satellite measurements transmitted
from mobile device 724 have been forged. Id. ,r,r 13-16, 40, 41.
The Examiner acknowledges Thomson does not teach all the claimed
recitations, but instead relies on ( 1) Liu for teaching "comparing the
untrusted location to a database of known spoofed locations" and
"comparing the untrusted location with a plurality of locations" (Final Act. 4
(citing Liu ,r 43)) and (2) Varoglu for teaching "determining the location ...
statistically overrepresent in the plurality of locations" (Final Act. 4--5
(citing Varoglu ,r 102)).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Thomson, Liu, and Varoglu, as well as the Examiner's rationale for the
combination. First, Appellants contend the cited prior art, including
Thomson, does not teach or suggest [1] "'receiv[ing] a signal identifying an
untrusted location associated with a mobile ... device"' recited in claims 1
and 16. App. Br. 7-8, 13; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Thomson
teaches "detecting spoofed A-GNSS [assisted global navigation satellite
system] signals by comparing navigation data messages received by a GPS
receiver with a navigation data message received by a reference network,"
but
[Thomson's] navigation data messages do not identify a location
(trusted or otherwise) associated with a mobile ... device as
recited in claim 1, and therefore cannot be taken as reasonably
corresponding to "receiving a signal identifying an untrusted
location associated with a mobile communication device" as
recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, "navigational data messages disclosed
by Thomson do not identify a location, untrusted or otherwise, that is
associated with a mobile ... device." Reply Br. 2.
Second, Appellants argue the cited prior art, including Liu and
Varoglu, fails to teach or suggest [2] "second data source comparator
module ... to compare the untrusted location to a plurality of locations
previously received by the network module to define a second match when
the untrusted location is statistically overrepresented in the plurality of
locations" and [3] "spoofed location detection module ... configured to [3a]
determine if the untrusted location was determined by the mobile ... device
... [3b] based ... on ... the second match" as recited in claims 1 and 16.
App. Br. 8-9, 13; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue Varoglu's
determining of "whether a particular area has a statistically significant
number of submissions indicating that the location has unreliable location
data (e.g., unreliable GPS)" is not the same as the claimed "second match
when the untrusted location is statistically overrepresented in the plurality of
locations." App. Br. 8 (quoting Varoglu ,r 102) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Third, Appellants argue, given Thomson's comparison of navigational
data messages received from a mobile device and satellites and such
navigational data messages do not represent locations associated with a
mobile device, "the proposed combination would not result in a
'compar[ison] of the untrusted location to a plurality of locations,[']" and
would not "determine if the untrusted location was determined by the mobile
... device" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9.
6
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
In response, the Examiner takes the position that the combination of
Thomson and Varoglu suggests [1] "'receiv[ing] a signal identifying an
untrusted location associated with a mobile ... device"' as recited in claim 1
because (i) Thomson's "'satellite measurements' corresponds [sic] to the
untrusted location" and (ii) Varoglu's disclosure of "'location coordinates
can include latitude, longitude, and the like."' Ans. 2 ( citing Thomson ,r 41;
quoting Varoglu ,r 43) (underlining omitted). The Examiner also responds
that the combination of Thomson, Liu, and Varoglu suggests [2] "'second
data source comparator module"' and [3] "'spoofed location detection
module"' because (i) Liu teaches the function of Appellants' claimed
"second data source comparator module," i.e., "to compare the untrusted
location to a plurality of locations previously received ... to define a second
match" in the context of checking an external link against a blacklist (Ans. 3
( citing Liu ,r 42) ( emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted)); and (ii)
Varoglu' s disclosure of "a statistically significant number of submissions
indicating that the location has unreliable location data" is the same as
Appellants' claimed "untrusted location ... statistically overrepresented in
the plurality of locations" as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 3 ( citing Liu ,r 42;
Varoglu ,r,r 41, 102) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
We agree with Appellants. Contrary to the Examiner's
characterization, Thomson's signals received from mobile device 724,
shown in Figure 7, are used at location center 721 to identify the location of
mobile device 724 "when the device [724] transmits one or more forged
satellite measurements" based on a request sent mobile device 724 to
provide navigation data message from GPS satellite 710. Thomson ,r,r 40-
41. However, the signals received from mobile device 724 do not
7
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
themselves "identifying an untrusted location ... associated with a mobile
... device" as recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 16.
Likewise, Liu's external links refer to web sites or domain names and
Liu's blacklist refers to a list of unsafe external links. Liu ,r,r 3, 6. As such,
Liu's disclosure of comparing an external link (i.e., domain name) against
general addresses ( e.g., domain names) on a blacklist or whitelist is not and
cannot be considered the same as Appellants' claimed "second data source
comparator module," i.e., "to compare the untrusted location to a plurality of
locations previously received ... to define a second match" as recited in
claims 1 and 16.
Similarly, Varoglu teaches a GPS receiver with sensor-assisted
location technology incorporated into a mobile device (shown in Figure 2) or
a vehicle (shown in Figure 3) to determine its location, and in some cases, to
identify areas with unreliable location data (i.e., weak GPS due to an urban
canyon). Varoglu, Abstract, ,r,r 5, 11, 41--43, Figs. 1-2. According to
Varoglu, because of weak GPS in that areas from a plurality of mobile
devices, "a server computer can analyze the numerous records and determine
whether a particular area has a statistically significant number of
submissions indicating that the location has unreliable location data ( e.g.,
unreliable GPS)" shown in Figure 8. Varoglu ,r,r 100-102. However,
Varoglu's disclosure of whether a particular area has unreliable location data
is not the same as Appellants' claimed "untrusted location ... statistically
overrepresented in the plurality of locations" as recited in claim 1. Because
Thomson, Liu, and Varoglu fail to teach the disputed limitations, there is no
reason for a skilled artisan to make the combination as alleged.
8
Appeal2017-003849
Application 14/615,129
Based on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 16 and their dependent claims 2-15 and 17-24.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
9