Ex Parte Muhonen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 2012

10550074 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JANNE MARKUS MUHONEN ____________ Appeal 2010-004492 Application 10/550,074 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004492 Application 10/550,074 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 17-22 and 31-35 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-16 and 23-30 were canceled (id. at 34, 36). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary claim 17 follows: 17. A method comprising: establishing an emergency call between a user’s equipment within a radio coverage area and one of at least two points having functionality to answer the call, the establishing comprising, receiving an emergency call request, determining a first estimate of a position of said user’s equipment within said radio coverage area, interrupting a call establishment of the emergency call, using a control point to select, based on said first position estimate, which one of said at least two answering points the call is to be established with, and when at least one answering point has been selected, resuming said call establishment, determining a second, more accurate, position estimate, and sending the second position estimate to the selected answering point. Claims 17-19, 21, 22, 31, 32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Rhodes (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0186709 A1) (Ans. 3-7). Appeal 2010-004492 Application 10/550,074 3 Claims 20 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rhodes in view of Maanoja (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0259566 A1) (Ans. 7). ISSUE Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Rhodes renders obvious determining a first estimate of a position of said user’s equipment within said radio coverage area, . . . . using a control point to select, based on said first position estimate, which one of said at least two answering points the call is to be established with, and when at least one answering point has been selected . . . determining a second, more accurate, position estimate, . . . as recited in independent claim 17 (emphasis added) and as similarly required by independent claims 21, 22, 34, and 35? ANALYSIS Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 17 as anticipated because Rhodes fails to disclose the claim limitation emphasized above (App. Br. 8-9). In support of this contention, Appellant argues that “Rhodes fails to disclose or suggest, for example, the features associated with ‘first position estimate’ and ‘second, more accurate, position estimate’” (id. at 10). More particularly, Appellant argues that “the cell site identify of Rhodes is not comparable to the ‘first position estimate’ because Appeal 2010-004492 Application 10/550,074 4 a cell site identity is known to merely identify a cell without regard to an estimated location of a device ‘within’ the coverage area of the cell” (id.). The Examiner found, however, that Rhodes discloses the first position estimate because “[t]he location of the cell site transmitting the emergency call provides an indication (estimate) of the mobile device’s initial location so that the call can be routed to a fallback public safety answering point if a better location estimate is not received” (Ans. 8-9) (citation omitted). The Examiner also found that Rhodes also discloses the second position estimate because “once an emergency call is established, additional, more accurate, location information may be determined for the mobile device” (id. at 9). In particular, “[t]he more accurate location information may include emergency service routine keys; the mobile device’s latitude and longitude, a location estimate, an indication of how accurate the location estimate is and the age of the location estimate” (id.). We agree with the Examiner. Rhodes discloses determining a first position estimate by stating that “[i]n sub-step A, the ISUP handler checks the switch profile for the cell site indicated by the GDP=ESRD (Emergency Service Routing Digits)] and that indicates ‘routing based on position’” (¶ [0043]). Rhodes discloses a second, more accurate, position estimate as “latitude/longitude of the caller’s mobile device, location estimate; location accuracy (e.g., including inner radius, uncertainty radius, offset and included angle)” (¶ [0055]). Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Rhodes does disclose determining two position estimates as recited in claim 17 and therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 17. We also find no error in the Examiner’s rejections of the remaining claims on appeal (i.e., claims 18-22 and 31-35) because Appellant either did Appeal 2010-004492 Application 10/550,074 5 not set forth any separate patentability arguments for those claims or set arguments that are the same as those set forth for claim 17 (see App. Br. 11- 32). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17-22 and 31-35 as obvious. 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 llw