Ex Parte Deloach

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2014

11137922 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAMES D. DELOACH, JR. ____________________ Appeal 2011-013279 Application 11/137,922 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHN C. KERINS, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013279 Application 11/137,922 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spinks (US 2001/0029534 A1, pub. Oct. 11, 2001) and Loushine (US 2005/0232189 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “calibrating a location system using user input.” Spec., para. [001]. Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method of calibrating a location system, comprising the steps of: receiving connection information regarding the connection of a device to a network access point; querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with the device; receiving user input regarding the physical location associated with the device connected to the network access point; determining, from the user input, a physical location of the network access point; and storing, within a storage device, the connection information and user input. Appeal 2011-013279 Application 11/137,922 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Spinks discloses the calibrating method of claim 1 other than the steps of “querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with the device and determining, from the user input, a physical location of the network access point.” Ans. 4-5. The Examiner further finds that Loushine discloses “a method and system for determining the location of subscriber’s devices” wherein “the physical location of a client is determined based on a request to the client to enter identification information” (Ans. 5) and the location determination “includes making a request to query the user to provide a unique identifier” (Ans. 22 (emphasis added) (citing Loushine, Abstract)). From these findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Spinks “to query a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with the device and [to determine], from the user input, information regarding a physical location of the network access point.” Ans. 5-6. Appellant argues that Loushine fails to disclose querying a user to determine the location of a network access point (App. Br. 10-13) and “it cannot reasonably be said that Loushine cures Spinks’ failure to disclose ‘querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with the device’ and then using this user input to determine ‘a physical location of the network access point’” (Reply Br. 3).1 We agree with Appellant. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Loushine does not disclose querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated 1 This argument is applicable to all of Appellant’s independent claims, each of which recites a step, an instruction, or means for querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with a device. Appeal 2011-013279 Application 11/137,922 4 with a device connected to a network. Rather, Loushine discloses several procedures for obtaining location information which generally involve querying the WLAN client and/or the client’s network access point. See, e.g., Loushine, Abstract (“A location request is then made to a MSC/SGSN servicing that WLAN network.”); para. [0021] (“an LBS client accesses an industry wide interface provided by the GMLC and requests the physical location of a mobile station or a WLAN client”); para. [0031] (“the gateway location services module then determines the physical location of each access point, by querying the local/regional database, for example, or by querying the individual access points”); para. [0032] (“the gateway location services module asks the WLAN client services module for the physical location of the WLAN client”). The Examiner appears to equate Loushine’s “client” with the term “user” as used in Appellant’s claims. However, as noted by Appellant (App. Br. 10), Loushine uses the term “client” to refer to user equipment. Loushine, para. [0014]. On the other hand, the claim term “user,” when interpreted in light of Appellant’s Specification, refers to a person using a device or equipment. See Spec. [016] (“[a] user of mobile computer system 100 inputs information regarding the physical location of the mobile computer system”). For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 because it is grounded in part on the unsupported finding that Loushine discloses querying a user to provide input regarding a physical location associated with a device. Appeal 2011-013279 Application 11/137,922 5 DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-25. REVERSED mls