Ex Parte Edge

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 22, 2019

14796033 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/796,033 07/10/2015 15093 7590 02/26/2019 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen W. Edge 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. 070985Dl (1059689) 8347 EXAMINER REAGAN, JAMES A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2019 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN W. EDGE Appeal 2017-011236 Application 14/796,033 Technology Center 3600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER S. BISK, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM Incorporated. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-011236 Application 14/796,033 BACKGROUND2 The claims are directed to network independent location services. Title. The Specification, for example, describes a process for supporting delivery of terrestrial assistance data, including the location of base stations for "a geographic area larger than the current coverage area of the terminal," to a cellular telephone. Spec. ,r,r 84, 112, Fig. 17. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of supporting location services for a terminal by a location server, the method comprising: receiving measured data for the terminal at a communications unit of the location server; determining, by the location server and based on the measured data, a geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area of the terminal; and providing, to the terminal, terrestrial assistance data for the determined geographic area. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over US 7,586,438 Bl, issued September 8, 2009 ("Lawrence") in view of US 2004/0181326 Al, published September 16, 2004 ("Adams"). ANALYSIS Appellant argues that neither Lawrence nor Adams discloses "determining, by the location server and based on the measured data, a 2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed July 10, 2015 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed July 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed January 23, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed May 18, 2017 ("Ans."). 2 Appeal 2017-011236 Application 14/796,033 geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area of the terminal" ("the determining limitation"). Appeal Br. 18-22. In particular, Appellant argues that Adams discloses a service location receiving data from a vehicular management system when that system is within a fixed wireless network coverage area, but "Adam's [sic] service location does not ... determine a coverage area, much less determine[], based on received measured data from the vehicular management system ( or from any other device), a geographic area larger than a current coverage area of the terminal." Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner responds that Adams also discloses "an outside coverage area, as well as a fixed wireless network coverage area using a GPS system." Ans. 3 ( citing Adams ,r 28). The Examiner adds that Lawrence discloses "a centralized processing facility," "satellites transmitting to Earth-bound reference stations and a control facility," and "position measuring." Id. (citing Lawrence Figs. 1, 4, 13:17-32). We find the Examiner has not adequately explained ( and it is unclear from in the record) how the relied-upon disclosures teach or suggest determining a geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area of the terminal. We see nothing in the cited portions of Adams or Lawrence that teach or suggest determining a larger geographic area. The Examiner does not explain, explicitly, what portion of Adams or Lawrence teaches or suggests this calculation. See Final Act. 7-9. In addition, The Examiner's Answer does not appear to address all the arguments presented by Appellant. See Ans. 3. Indeed, the Answer makes no mention of any calculation in the two references or how such calculation would be obvious in view of Adams and Lawrence. Id. Moreover, although the Examiner points to Lawrence as 3 Appeal 2017-011236 Application 14/796,033 "disclos[ing] position measuring," (Ans. 3), nothing in the portion of Lawrence cited by the Examiner describes computing a "geographic area that is larger than a current coverage area." See Lawrence 13: 17-32. Therefore, on this record, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1, and erred in concluding claim 1 is obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, or independent claim 7, which recites the disputed limitation in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-10, which depend from claims 1 and 7. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Lawrence and Adams. REVERSED 4