Ex Parte Sarkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 11, 2013

10555391 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AMITES SARKAR and ANDREW T. YULE ____________ Appeal 2011-003026 Application 10/555,391 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BARRY L. GROSSMAN, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003026 Application 10/555,391 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Amites Sarkar and Andrew T. Yule (“Appellants”) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Claimed Subject Matter Claims 1 and 5 are independent. Claims 1 and 5 are representative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below. 1. A method of determining a GPS position fix comprising the steps of: providing standard GPS ephemeris corresponding to that transmitted by a GPS satellite; generating supplemental GPS ephemeris at a GPS navigation device, the supplemental GPS ephemeris comprising at least one parameter describing the fluctuation over time of at least one satellite orbit parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris; measuring pseudoranges to GPS satellites; and determining a GPS position fix for the GPS navigation device from at least one of a plurality of data, the plurality of data comprising the standard and supplemental GPS ephemeris and the pseudoranges. 5. A GPS receiver configured to determine a GPS position fix from standard GPS ephemeris corresponding to that transmitted by a GPS satellite; supplemental GPS ephemeris including at least one parameter describing the fluctuation over time of at least one satellite orbit parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris; and pseudoranges measured from the GPS receiver to GPS satellites. Appeal 2011-003026 Application 10/555,391 3 References The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references: Chou US 6,525,688 B2 Feb. 25, 2003 LaMance US 6,542,820 B2 Apr. 1, 2003 Rejections The Examiner makes the following rejections:1 I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Chou; and II. Claim 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chou and LaMance. SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. OPINION Rejection I – Anticipation The Examiner found that Chou anticipates claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 15 because it discloses each and every element of the claims. Ans. 3-4. In particular, the Examiner found that Chou discloses at least one parameter describing the fluctuation over time of at least one satellite orbit parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris “in Fig 1 where it shows the component of time fluctuation, further shown in figure 4 and described in column 5 lines 38 - 57 & column 7 lines 54 – 62.” Id. at 8. Appellants raise several arguments in response to this rejection, including that Chou does not disclose “generating supplemental ephemeris 1 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chou. Ans. 3. Appeal 2011-003026 Application 10/555,391 4 data which includes at least one parameter describing the fluctuation over time of at least one satellite orbit parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris.” App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that the Examiner’s finding appears to rely upon “time” as the satellite orbit parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris disclosed by Chou, and that such finding would be “illogical because . . . [it] would simply require that time . . . fluctuates over time.” Reply Br. 7. A determination that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) involves two analytical steps. First, we interpret the claim language, where necessary, giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Second, we compare the construed claim to a prior art reference and make factual findings to determine whether “each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in [that] single prior art reference.” Id. (citation omitted). An Examiner’s factual finding regarding what a reference discloses must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1449 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (Plager, J., concurring) (“In rejecting an application, factual determinations by the PTO must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, and legal conclusions must be correct.”) (citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the Examiner’s Answer, Chou, and in particular, the portions of Chou cited by the Examiner. The Examiner’s finding that “[t]his is disclosed by Chou . . . where it shows the component of time fluctuation” (Ans. 8), appears to suggest that time fluctuation is the “parameter describing the fluctuation over time of at least one satellite orbit Appeal 2011-003026 Application 10/555,391 5 parameter of the standard GPS ephemeris” recited in claims 1 and 5. The Examiner’s citations of Chou, however, do not clearly indicate which aspect(s) of Figures 1 and 4 correspond to the Examiner’s finding that “time fluctuation” satisfies this element of the claims. Similarly, the Examiner’s citations of column 5, lines 38-57, and column 7, lines 54-62, do not clearly articulate the aspects of Chou relied upon by the Examiner as disclosing this element of the claims. Accordingly, we find that Rejection I is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and, consequently, do not sustain the rejection. Rejection II – Obviousness Rejection II was based upon the Examiner’s finding that Chou discloses the elements of claims 1 and 5.2 Ans. 5. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed with respect to Rejection I, we do not sustain Rejection II. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 15. REVERSED mls 2 Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2, which depends from claim 1, and claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6, which depends from claim 5.