Ex Parte Shkedi

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

14085603 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/085,603 11/20/2013 Roy Shkedi 26362 7590 03/28/2019 LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C. 7689 East Paradise Lane Suite 2 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 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. 24-CON3 1086 EXAMINER PHUONG,DAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): Louis@valuablepatents.com donald@valuablepatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROY SHKEDI Appeal2017-005949 Application 14/085,603 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 47--49 and 51-76, which are all the claims pending in this application. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 An Oral Hearing was held for this appeal on March 12, 2019. 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Broadphone, LLC. App. Br. 1. 3 Claims 1--46, 50, and 61 have been canceled previously. Appeal2017-005949 Application 14/085,603 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant's disclosure is directed to "methods for determining the location of a mobile telephone." See Spec. 1. Claim 4 7, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 4 7. A method of determining whether a portable RF communications device is present at a device-specific target location, the method comprising: with the portable RF communications device automatically: (a) receiving a first plurality of communications signals, each received from one of a first plurality of antenna stations within range of the portable RF communications device, wherein the antenna stations are fixed-location service-area antenna stations and are substantially continuously operating; (b) causing a determination of whether the portable RF communications device is within proximity of the device-specific target location by electronically comparing at least one number based on signal strengths of each of the first plurality of communications signals with at least one number based on corresponding signal strengths of each of a second plurality of communication signals from a second plurality of antenna stations that have been identified as being within range of the same location as the device-specific target location, which signal strengths have been determined for the same location as the device-specific target location; and ( c) as a result of the determination that the portable RF communications device is within proximity of the device-specific target location, initiating, on the portable RF communications device, a location-based action associated with the device-specific target location. 2 Appeal2017-005949 Application 14/085,603 Emphasis added to highlight the disputed limitations. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 47--49, 51---60, 62-69, 71-73, 75, and 76 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Huomo (US 2004/0203863 Al; pub. Oct. 14, 2004) and Erskine (US 2006/0154644 Al; pub. July 13, 2006). See Final Act. 3-12. Claims 70 and 74 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Huomo, Erskine, and Zellner (US 2007/0010260 Al; pub. Jan. 11, 2007). See Final Act. 12-13. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Huomo and Erskine teaches or suggests "comparing at least one number based on signal strengths of each of the first plurality of communications signals with at least one number based on corresponding signal strengths of each of a second plurality of communication signals," as recited in independent claim 47. 4 See App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner initially maps the disputed claim limitation to the signal strength measurement and base station identifiers comparison (i.e., to see if the identifiers match) of Huomo. See Final Act. 3--4 (citing Huomo ,r,r 36, 46, 53). The Examiner further finds Erskine discloses "signal strength information associated with each of the cell sector identifiers" and "a 4 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2017-005949 Application 14/085,603 comparison of cell sector identifiers" as the recited "at least one number based on signal strengths." See Final Act. 5 (citing Erskine ,r 61). In response to Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds the broadest reasonable interpretation of "comparing at least one number based on signal strengths" does not require the numbers be actually the signal strengths, but encompasses comparing any number that is associated with signal strengths. Ans. 2. Based on this interpretation, the Examiner finds comparing the base stations identifiers or numbers in Huomo meets the claimed comparing step because a base station has both signal strength and an identifier. Ans. 3. The Examiner further explains Erskine teaches the disputed feature by comparing cell sector identifiers, which have signal strength information associated therewith. Ans. 5. As argued by Appellant, the Examiner's broad interpretation of the disputed claim feature is not correct because "the claim language clearly says that the number must be 'a number based on the signal strengths' and must be compared to another 'number based on corresponding signal strength,"' and not "one must decide what number to retrieve 'based on signal strength' or that the number is 'associated' with a separate signal strength." Reply Br. 2. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Huomo teach comparing currently received and previously stored base station identifiers and locations of interest (see e.g., Huomo ,r,r 36, 46, 48, and 53) whereas signal strength is used "to decide which signal (identified by the identifier) is the strongest signal." Reply Br. 2. Similarly, with respect to Erskine, we agree with Appellant that comparing geographical locations or coordinates does not teach or suggest what is missing from Huomo. Reply Br. 3. 4 Appeal2017-005949 Application 14/085,603 Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record and do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 7. Independent claim 5 8 recites a claim limitation that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 4 7. Therefore, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 47 and 58. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of corresponding dependent claims 48, 49, 51-57, and 59-76. DECISION We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4 7--49 and 51-76. REVERSED 5