Ex Parte Fox et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2014

11180220 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID ANDREW FOX, GAVIN WONG, and CHRISTOPHER DAVID PUDNEY Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, DENISE M. POTHIER, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to [S]ystems and methods for implementing location based services in communications networks. In one example, when the Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) of a telecommunications network receives a request for the location of a mobile terminal, a Serving Mobile Location Center (SMLC) is interrogated to obtain therefrom, if available, data Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 2 indicative of the location of the relevant mobile terminal. The mobile terminal may be caused to selectively switch between a GSM radio access network and another access network if no location information is derivable from one of the access networks currently used by the device. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A telecommunications network, comprising: a radio access network comprising a plurality of geographically distributed cells; a core network adapted to provide telecommunications network functions to devices registered therewith, wherein the core network is adapted to provide the telecommunications network functions to said devices via another access network, the telecommunications network further comprising: means for receiving a request for the location of one of said devices; interrogating means for determining whether a location data processor can provide data indicative of the location of said device; and means for causing the device to switch from a first one to a second one of the respective access networks if said location indicative data is determined not to be available when the device uses the first access network. Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Caughran et al. US 2002/0107029 A1 Aug. 8, 2002 Vimpari US 2002/0176407 A1 Nov. 28, 2002 Walsh et al. US 6,603,977 B1 Aug. 5, 2003 Lucidarme et al. US 6,785,535 B2 Aug. 31, 2004 Li et al. US 2005/0170852 A1 Aug. 4, 2005 Gallagher et al. US 7,127,250 B2 Oct. 24, 2006 THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5–7, 9, 10, 17–20, 24–26, 28, 29, and 36–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lucidarme, Walsh, and Vimpari. Ans. 5–9.1 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2–4 and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lucidarme, Walsh, Vimpari, and Caughran. Ans. 9–10. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lucidarme, Walsh, Vimpari, and Gallagher. Ans. 11. 4. The Examiner rejected claims 11–16 and 30–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lucidarme, Walsh, Vimpari, and Li. Ans. 11–13. 1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 10, 2011; the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 10, 2011; and, the Reply Brief filed January 10, 2012. Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9–18) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 5–10) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5–13), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 14–21). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. With regard to the first ground of rejection noted above, Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to show that the cited combination of Lucidarme, Walsh, and Vimpari discloses the claimed means for receiving, interrogating means and means for causing a device to switch, as recited in independent claims 1 and 20. App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner has conceded that Lucidarme fails to disclose these means and has relied upon Walsh for the disclosure of the interrogating means and Vimpari for a disclosure of the means for causing a device to switch; however, Appellants argue that the cited combination reveals an unconditional switching, rather than a switching which is dependent upon the non-availability of location indicative data, as claimed. Id. Walsh discloses obtaining the location indicative data by either a “push” or “pull” technique, but does not disclose switching networks, according to Appellants. Further, Appellants urge that Walsh implicitly teaches away from the claimed invention because the location information service available within a short range network is utilized within an urban Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 5 canyon situation where long range networks do not perform well. Id. at 11- 12. Additionally, Appellants argue that Vimpari, when location services are required, always switches to a circuit switched mode for such services, rather than switching in response to an indication that location services are not available in the first network. Id. at 13. Appellants also argue that the proposed combination of Vimpari with Lucidarme and Walsh is inappropriate, in view of the Examiner’s failure to establish a rationale for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine those references. Id. at 14. The Examiner finds that Walsh discloses the concept of receiving a request for the location of a device and interrogating that device to determine if location indicative data is available, citing Col. 14, lines 43–49 as well as steps 608 and 610 of Figure 6 of Walsh. Ans. 14. The Examiner also finds that Vimpari discloses switching from one network to a second network to obtain location indicative data, citing ¶¶ [0029–30]. Id. The Examiner finds that Walsh simply teaches a way to provide location information for a mobile device in situations such as emergencies. The Examiner asserts that the teaching by Walsh of the use of a short range network should not be interpreted as a teaching away from the concept of switching networks if location information is not available on the present network. Id. at 16. Additionally, even assuming Walsh’s teaching implicitly renders the combined system somewhat inferior in long range networks where the service purportedly does not perform well as Appellants contest, this does not teach away from the combination. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 6 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). With regard to Appellants’ argument regarding the lack of a rationale for the proposed combination, the Examiner points out that Vimpari discloses a system whereby a mobile station may communicate using both packet-switched and circuit-switched data transmission in combination with a location database, as pointed out in ¶ [0009] of Vimpari. The Examiner finds that Vimpari’s suggestion of switching from a first network to a second network because location services are not available in the first network provides sufficient basis for the proposed combination. Id. at 18-19. We concur with the Examiner. We find ample rationale for the proposed combination and little support for alleged teaching away of Walsh, as argued by the Examiner. Further, we find that Appellants’ claims only require a switching from a first network to a second network in response to a determination that location indicative data is not available within the first network. That is, as broadly as recited, the language of Appellants’ claims does not require that location indicative data is ever available within the first network, only that the device switches to a second network in response to the non-availability of location indicative data within the first network. Appellants did not submit separate and particular arguments with respect to the dependent claims, relying instead on the argument posed above with respect to claims 1 and 20. For the reasons we set forth above, we find the Examiner did not err in the various rejections of claim 20, which recites similar elements to claim 1, and the dependent claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–40 under § 103. Appeal 2012-005030 Application 11/180,220 7 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–40 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED cdc