Ex Parte Syrjarinne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 2013

11885200 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JARI SYRJARINNE, HARRI VALIO, KIMMO ALANEN, SAMULI PIETILA, and TUOMO HONKANEN ____________________ Appeal 2012-002177 Application 11/885,200 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: EDWARD A. BROWN, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and NEIL T. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judges. POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002177 Application 11/885,200 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-17, 20, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed subject matter. 1. An apparatus comprising: - a measurement component configured to perform measurements on received satellite signals; - a first processor, with a software code, configured to control said measurement component based on received control parameters; and - a first interface component configured to receive control parameters via another interface component from another processor external to said apparatus, and configured to provide said control parameters to said first processor; - said first processor, with said software code, being further configured to convert measurement results of said measurement component into a suitable format for position information calculations at said other processor; and - said first interface component being further configured to forward said converted measurement results via said other interface component to said other processor. Appeal 2012-002177 Application 11/885,200 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: McBurney US 6,078,290 June 20, 2000 Renard US 6,081,691 June 27, 2000 Tsujimoto US 2002/0145560 A1 Oct. 10, 2002 Chiayee WO 2004/017092 A1 Feb. 26, 2004 REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the following rejections. I. Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15-17, 20, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by McBurney.1 II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McBurney and Renard.2 III. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McBurney and Chiayee. IV. Claims 5, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McBurney and Tsujimoto. 1 The opening sentence of this rejection lists only claims 1, 4, 7-10, and 20 as subject to the rejection (Ans. 4), but the rejection subsequently presents findings that McBurney discloses the limitations of claims 15-17 and 22-25 (id. at 6-9). Additionally, Appellants list claims 15-17 and 22-25 as subject to this anticipation rejection. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we treat claims 15- 17 and 22-25 as subject to this rejection. 2 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants appear to question whether the rejection relies on Renard or Chiayee. App. Br. 10. In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies that the rejection relies only on Renard, not Chiayee. Ans. 14. Appeal 2012-002177 Application 11/885,200 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15-17, 20, and 22-25 Appellants dispute the Examiner’s findings that the description at column 4, lines 9-44 of McBurney discloses the limitations of independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 20 related to conversion of measurement results into a format suitable for position information calculations at/in “said other processor.” App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3; Ans. 5-8. Appellants argue that this portion of McBurney discloses generation of intermediate data but does not indicate that this involves converting data into a format suitable for position information calculations at another processor. App. Br. 8. And, Appellants note, “[t]he Examiner has not said anything specifically about where the conversion takes place or what the nature of the conversion is” in McBurney. Id. In response, the Examiner asserts that McBurney’s disclosures that its system may transmit intermediate data in various ways and may be used for different types of GPS demonstrate that the system must convert the data in a manner meeting the claim limitations. Ans. 12-13 (citing McBurney, col. 2, ll. 23-28, col. 4, ll. 19-22). Consistent with Appellants’ argument, the Examiner does not clearly identify any specific portion of McBurney’s system as corresponding to the disputed claim limitations. Without pointing to any specific portion of McBurney’s system as meeting the disputed claim limitations, the Examiner does not establish explicit anticipation by a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, without further evidence or explanation, the Examiner does not provide a sound technical basis for the suggestion that McBurney inherently anticipates the claims. See Ans. 13. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Appeal 2012-002177 Application 11/885,200 5 rejection of independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 20, or the rejection of dependent claims 4, 7-10, 16, and 22-25. Claims 3, 5, 6, and 11-14 The rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, and 11-14, which depend from claim 1, do not contain findings curing the above-discussed deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1. See Ans. 9-11, 14-15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, and 11-14. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-17, 20, and 22-25. REVERSED llw