Ex Parte Park

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

13801509 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/801,509 03/13/2013 Young Shin Park QC124327 9233
12371 7590 08/28/2017
Mnnrv rre.issle.r Olrk & T owe P P /OT TAT POMM EXAMINER
4000 Legato Road, Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
TISSOT, ADAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG SHIN PARK
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
Technology Center 3600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—36, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application relates to “changing a position determination scheme
used by a user equipment (UE) during a transition between indoor and
outdoor spaces relative to an enclosed environment.” (Spec. 12.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of operating a user equipment (UE), comprising:
obtaining, by the UE, transition region information that
characterizes a set of indoor-to-outdoor transition regions
between an indoor space and an outdoor space relative to a given
enclosed environment;
tracking, by the UE, a location of the UE using an indoor
positioning scheme based on a first wireless technology while the
UE is operating within the indoor space;
detecting, by the UE based on the location tracking using the
indoor positioning scheme, that the UE has entered into a given
indoor-to-outdoor transition region from the set of indoor-to-
outdoor transition regions; and
initiating, by the UE, location tracking of the UE using an
outdoor positioning scheme based on a second wireless
technology that is different from the first wireless technology in
response to the detection.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Das et al. (US 2011/0172906 Al; published July 14, 2011) or, in the
alternative, over Das and Van Dalen et al. (US 2010/0187406 Al; published
July 29, 2010). (See Final Act. 3—8.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant’s claims are generally directed to user equipment (“UE,”
e.g., a cell phone) that (A) obtains information regarding “transition regions”
between indoor and outdoor space, (B) tracks the location of the UE using a
first wireless technology (e.g., WiFi) when the device is indoors, (C) detects
that the UE has entered a transition region, and (D) in response to that
detection, switches to a second wireless technology (e.g., GPS) for location
tracking.
In rejecting the claims under Section 103, the Examiner finds that Das
discloses the claimed technique, except that “Das does not explicitly disclose
that transitioning from one space to another initiates the use of a second
wireless technology.” (Final Act. 3—4.) The Examiner further finds,
however, that “Das teaches that a second, different wireless technology can
be used to obtain positioning,” that “[i]t is well known that certain wireless
technologies are suited for use in either indoor or outdoor environments,”
and that, as such, “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to switch from one wireless technology that is suited to an [indoor or
outdoor environment] to a different wireless technology better suited to an
[outdoor or indoor environment] to improve navigation through indoor and
outdoor portions of a route.” (Id. at 4.) In the alternative, the Examiner adds
3
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
Van Dalen, which “discloses initiating an outdoor (or indoor, for claim 11)
positioning scheme based on a second wireless technology that is different
from the first wireless technology in response to the detection.” (Id. at 5—6.)
For the reasons articulated by the Examiner, we agree that it would
have been obvious to combine Das’ teachings regarding the use of a
transition region as a trigger with Van Dalen’s teachings regarding the use of
a trigger to switch between WiFi and GPS positioning systems. The
Supreme Court tells us that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results” and that “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond [that person’s] skill.” KSR
Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007). We find that the
instant combination reflects a predictable use of known techniques within
the skill of the ordinary artisan and, accordingly, conclude that the claims
are barred under Section 103.2
We have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments, but are not
persuaded of error. Appellant primarily contends that “Das loads maps
based upon transition region detection as opposed to switching positioning
schemes, whereas Van Dalen switches between a WiFi-based positioning
2 Because we agree that the claims are obvious in light of the combination of
Das and Van Dalen, we do not reach the question of obviousness over Das
alone. See In reHyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirmance of
rejection of all claims under Section 103(a) made it unnecessary to reach
other grounds of rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
4
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
scheme and an SPS-based positioning scheme based on ambient light.”
(App. Br. 7.) These assertions, which address the references individually,
fail to show error because they do not confront the combination, in which
Van Dalen’s location system switching is modified to use Das’ transition
region detection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . .
the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
Appellant relatedly argues that, in a combination of Das and Van
Dalen, “Das’s POIs would be used to load maps as noted above, while the
artificial light sensor of Van Dalen [or relative signal strength] would be
used to toggle between GPS-based and WiFi-based positioning schemes.”
(App. Br. 11.) While that might be another possible arrangement, this
argument again fails to address the Examiner’s modification, in which Das’
POIs are used to switch between positioning systems. And Appellant’s
argument that “conflating Das’s POIs with the artificial light sensor of Van
Dalen would serve no apparent purpose and would only complicate
operation of the alleged Das/Van Dalen combination” (App. Br. 11) is not
persuasive because (a) the combination does not necessarily include any
maps (which are not claimed) and (b) a combination that did include
changing both maps and the locating scheme would, in fact, be simplified by
using Das’ POIs to switch both, as compared to using separate mechanisms
for each.
Because we are not persuaded of error, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1—36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2016-003435
Application 13/801,509
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—36 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6