International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2021

2020001345 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 2021)

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.
15/791,507 10/24/2017 Saritha Arunkumar YOR920161075US2 9134
48150 7590 06/01/2021
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, DINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SARITHA ARUNKUMAR, NIZAR LETHIF,
MUDHAKAR SRIVATSA, and ENARA VIJIL
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507
Technology Center 2600
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–39.2 Claims 1–20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
2 The Examiner indicates claim 40 “is objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims.” Non-Final Act. 16.
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 21, 30, and 36 are independent claims. Claim 21 is
reproduced below:
21. A computer-implemented information verification
method, the method comprising:
measuring a first signal strength from a user device to a
second device, wherein the first signal strength is measured
from a perspective of the user device;
measuring a second signal strength from the second
device to the user device, wherein the second signal strength is
measured from a perspective of the second device;
comparing the first signal strength with the second signal
strength to determine a difference in signal strength between the
first signal strength and the second signal strength; and
verifying an information to confirm a location of the user
device in relation to the second device, based on the difference
in the signal strength in a result of said comparing which
indicates a spoofing of the location of the user device according
to the difference in relation to an actual location of the user
device.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 21–39 for obviousness-type double
patenting based on claims 1–20 of US 9,854,398 B1. Non-Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 30, and 36 for obviousness-type
double patenting based on claims 1, 10, and 17 of US 9,854,398 B1 and
Edge (US 2015/0215762 Al, published July 30, 2015). Non-Final Act. 4–6.
The Examiner rejects claims 21–25, 30, 32–34, 36, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Do (US 2014/0179340 A1,
published June 26, 2014) and Edge. Non-Final Act. 6–12.
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

3
The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Do, Edge, and Dintenfass (US 2017/0323398 A1,
published Nov. 9, 2017). Non-Final Act. 12–13.
The Examiner rejects claims 27, 31, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Do, Edge, and Shkedi (US 2008/0070572 A1,
published Mar. 20, 2008). Non-Final Act. 13–14.
The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Do, Edge, and Jan (US 2013/0143600 A1, published
June 6, 2013). Non-Final Act. 14–15.
The Examiner rejects claims 29 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Do, Edge, and Morgenthau (US 2017/0270461 A1,
published Sept. 21, 2017). Non-Final Act. 15–16.
OPINION
Double Patenting
The Examiner rejects claims 21–39 for obviousness-type double
patenting based on the claims 1–20 of US 9,854,398 B1. Non-Final Act. 4.
The Examiner further rejects claims 21, 30, and 36 for obviousness-type
double patenting based on claims 1, 10, and 17 of US 9,854,398 B1 and
Edge. Id. at 4–6.
Appellant does not challenge the merits of the double patenting
rejections. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we summarily sustain
both of the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections.

Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

4
Obviousness
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Edge teaches
verifying an information to confirm a location of the user
device in relation to the second device, based on the difference
in the signal strength in a result of said comparing which
indicates a spoofing of the location of the user device according
to the difference in relation to an actual location of the user
device,
as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claims 30 and 36.
Appeal Br. 8–11; Reply Br. 2–4. Specifically, Appellant argues “Edge does
not teach or suggest location spoofing but instead relates to providing a
MAC address.” Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 3. Appellant
further argues “one could not use the teaching” of Edge “without using the
MAC address which is unrelated to the current invention.” Reply Br. 4
(emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 8;
Ans. 3–4), and we agree, Edge’s disclosure of “a mismatch” between
Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI), Angle Of signal Arrival (AOA),
or Round Trip signal propagation Time (RTT) measurements provided by
“spoofed” target device 110-1 and alternative “spoofing” device 110-2
(Edge ¶ 40; see id. ¶ 35, Fig. 1) teaches
verifying an information to confirm a location of the user
device in relation to the second device, based on the difference
in the signal strength in a result of said comparing which
indicates a spoofing of the location of the user device according
to the difference in relation to an actual location of the user
device.
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

5
In particular, Edge states that “alternate device 110-2,” i.e., the spoofing
device, “would most likely not have . . . provided RSSI, RTT and/or AOA
measurements for AP 105-1 corresponding to or consistent with any
measurements made by AP 105-1 for the spoofed wireless device 110-1”
and, so, “there will be a mismatch between the information provided.”
Id. ¶ 40. Edge further states “any location reported by or derived from
measurements from alternate device 110-2,” i.e., the spoofing device, “will
likely not match any location for the spoofed wireless device 110-1 derived
using [network based positioning (NBP)] from measurements,” i.e., RSSI,
RTT, or AOA measurements. Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings based
on Edge’s RSSI, AOA, or RTT measurement mismatches and, instead,
unpersuasively argue a different feature described in Edge, i.e., MAC
addresses. As the Examiner points out in the Answer, “the rejection does
not rely on a MAC address” to teach the disputed limitation. Ans. 7.
Appellant, however, only discusses MAC addresses in its Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 2–4) and Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 8–10), ignoring and failing
to address Edge’s RSSI, AOA, or RTT measurement mismatches. As such,
Appellant’s strawman attack on Edge’s MAC addresses does not persuade
us that that Edge’s RSSI, AOA, or RTT measurement mismatches fail to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Further, Appellant’s argument that “one could not use the teaching of
paragraph [0040] without using the MAC address which is unrelated to the
current invention” (Reply Br. 4 (emphasis omitted)) is not persuasive for a
number of reasons. First, that argument inappropriately requires the bodily
incorporation of features in Edge, i.e., MAC addresses, which the
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

6
Examiner’s combination does not rely on or require. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference.”); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,
1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review”). Furthermore, Appellant’s assertion that MAC addresses are
required in the combination is supported only by attorney argument, which
“cannot take the place of evidence,” and, so, Appellant has not persuasively
established that MAC addresses must be incorporated into the combination.
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Even further, even if
MAC addresses were required in the combination, the claims do not
preclude the use of MAC addresses.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding Edge teaches
verifying an information to confirm a location of the user
device in relation to the second device, based on the difference
in the signal strength in a result of said comparing which
indicates a spoofing of the location of the user device according
to the difference in relation to an actual location of the user
device,
as recited in claim 21 and similarly recited in claims 30 and 36. Appellant
does not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 22–29, 21–35,
and 37–39. See Appeal Br. 8–11. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–39.
Appeal 2020-001345
Application 15/791,507

7
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–39 Double Patenting
over claims 1–20
of U.S. Patent
9,854,398 B1
21–39
21, 30, 36 Double Patenting
over claims 1, 10,
and 17 of U.S.
Patent 9,854,398
B1, Edge
21, 30, 36
21–25, 30,
32–34, 36,
39
103 Do, Edge 21–25, 30,
32–34, 36,
39

26, 35 Do, Edge,
Dintenfass
26, 35
27, 31, 38 Do, Edge, Shkedi 27, 31, 38
28 Do, Edge, Jan 28
29, 37 Do, Edge,
Morgenthau
29, 37
Overall
Outcome
21–39
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED