Michael E. Jackson et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2019

14466975 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019)

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.
14/466,975 08/23/2014 Michael E. Jackson 0420.26 4203
112664 7590 12/02/2019
Trimble Inc.
Swanson & Bratschun, L.L.C.
8210 Southpark Terrace
Littleton, CO 80120
EXAMINER
ISSING, GREGORY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2019 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):
efspatents@sbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL E. JACKSON, PAUL PASSMORE, and
HANS-GERD DÜNCK-KERST
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, 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 1–11, 13, and 15–25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trimble
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

2
According to Appellant, the invention “relates . . . to technology for
detecting displacement, including without limitation, displacement resulting
from earthquakes.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 2, and 25 are the independent
claims on appeal. Below, we reproduce independent claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims:
1. An earthquake early warning system, comprising:
a housing;
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver disposed
within the housing;
one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing, the one
or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground
surface, structure, or object;
an input/output interface;
a processor disposed within the housing; and
a computer readable medium disposed within the housing, the
computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set
of instructions executable by the processor, the set of
instructions comprising:
instructions to receive GNSS position data with the GNSS
receiver, the GNSS receiver having a GNSS
operating characteristic and a GNSS error
characteristic;
instructions to receive GNSS correction data over a
network connection or from a GNSS satellite;
instructions to correct the GNSS position data using the
GNSS correction data;
instructions to observe seismic data with the one or more
seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors
each having a seismic operating characteristic and a
seismic error characteristic;
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

3
instructions to integrate the seismic data to calculate a
seismic sensor displacement value over a specified
sample period;
instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value from
the GNSS position data gathered over the specified
sample period;
instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value
with the seismic sensor displacement value in a
Kalman filter, based at least in part on the GNSS
operating characteristic and error characteristic and
the seismic operating characteristic and error
characteristic, wherein combining the GNSS
displacement and the seismic sensor displacement
value comprises performing at least a forward
filtering operation with the Kalman filter, wherein
the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement
value with the seismic sensor displacement value in
the Kalman filter further includes:
instructions to estimate parameters of a model
equation for predicting the estimated
displacement value and the estimated
velocity value, based on an order of a
function of the model equation, the GNSS
data, GNSS operating characteristic, GNSS
error characteristic, seismic data, seismic
operating characteristic, and seismic error
characteristic, and instructions to update the
estimated parameters based on weighted
measurements of the GNSS data and seismic
data;
instructions to determine, in real time, an estimated
displacement value and an estimated velocity
value from the combined GNSS and seismic
sensor displacement values;
instructions to calculate, in real time, a predominant
period, wherein the predominant period includes at
least two estimated displacements instructions to
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

4
calculate, in real time, a peak displacement during
the predominant period;
instructions to determine an intensity level of an
earthquake based at least in part on one or more of
the predominant period and the peak displacement;
and
instructions to transmit an earthquake warning indicating
the determined intensity level using the input/output
interface.

REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
I. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the
written-description requirement;
II. Claims 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that
Appellant regards as the invention;

Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

5
III. Claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 252 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as anticipated by Raman et al. (US 2009/0115656 A1, pub.
May 7, 2009) (“Raman”), as evidenced by3 Ding, “Optimal
Integration of GPS with Inertial Sensors: Modelling and
Implementation,” School of Surveying and Spatial Information
Systems, The University of New South Wales, March 2008
(“Ding”), and Gade, K., “(2009): Introduction to Inertial
Navigation and Kalman Filtering,” Tutorial for IAIN World
Congress, Stockholm, Sweden, Oct. 2009 (“Gade”);
IV. Claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Raman, Ding, and Gade; and
V. Claims 1–11, 13, and 15–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bock et al., “Real-Time Strong-Motion
Broadband Displacements from Collocated GPS and
Accelerometers,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 101, No. 6, pp. 2904–2925, December 2011
(“Bock”), either paragraph 53 of Appellant’s Specification

2 In the Final Action, the Examiner indicates that the rejection of claims 2,
7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25 “is substantially [as] set forth in the previous Office
Action at paragraphs 9–16,” which refers to the Non-Final Office Action
mailed January 9, 2018. Final Act. 4. Notwithstanding that in paragraph 9
of the Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 13, 15–
21, and 25, we interpret the Examiner’s statement in the Final Office Action
to mean that, in the Final Office Action, the Examiner does not reject
claims 1 and 3–6.
3 Although the Examiner states that the claims are “anticipated by . . .
Raman . . . in view of Ding . . . and Gade,” we interpret the Examiner’s
statement to mean that the claims are anticipated by Raman, as evidenced by
Ding and Gade. See Final Act. 4.
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

6
(“Admitted Prior Art”) or Colombelli et al., “Test of a
Threshold-Based Earthquake Early-Warning Method Using
Japanese Data,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 102, No. 3, pp. 1266−1275, June 2012
(“Colombelli”), and Ding and Gade.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I—Written-Description Rejection
Dependent claim 5, which ultimately depends from independent
claim 2, recites in its entirety “[t]he displacement measurement device of
claim 24, wherein the computer readable medium further comprises
instructions to provide warning of theft of the object, based, in part, on at
least one of the estimated displacement value, the estimated velocity value,
or peak displacement during the predominant period.” Appeal Br., Claims
App. (emphases added). The Examiner rejects claim 5 as lacking written-
description support because, according to the Examiner, Appellant’s
“[S]pecification is silent as to the determination and use of an intensity level
of an earthquake in providing for instructions to provide a warning of theft
of an object.” Final Act. 2.
Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the rejection.
First, we agree with Appellant that claim 5 does not recite providing a
warning of theft based on an intensity level of an earthquake. Appeal
Br. 22–23; see also Reply Br. 4–5. Instead, as set forth above, claim 5 bases
a warning of theft on one or more of estimated displacement, estimated
velocity, and peak displacement. Id. at Claims App. (Claim 5).
In response to Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner notes that dependent claim 24, from which claim 5 directly
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

7
depends, recites “determining an intensity of an earthquake based on the
predominant period and the peak displacement,” and the Examiner
determines that there is no “written description of providing a warning of
theft after determining an intensity of an earthquake based on the
predominant period and the peak displacement during the predominant
period.” Answer 4. We agree with Appellant, however, that “claim 5 does
not recite that warning of theft is provided based on the intensity level of an
earthquake, or that warning must be provided ‘after’ such determination, or
any other [such] relationship between the warning and an intensity level of
an earthquake.” Reply Br. 4.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner does not support
adequately that any recitation in claim 5 which lacks written-description
support. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

Rejection II—Indefiniteness Rejection
Dependent claim 3 recites, in relevant part, “provid[ing] [a]
warning . . . based, in part, on at least one of the estimated displacement
value, the estimated velocity value, peak displacement during the
predominant period, or the estimated intensity level of the earthquake.”
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Dependent claims 4 and 5
include similar recitations. Id. According to the Examiner, “[t]he claim
language is indefinite since it is not clear what the scope of ‘based, in part,
on at least one of’ encompasses.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner further
determines that “it is uncertain whether the scope of the claim encompasses
the embodiment wherein the ‘based in part’ is fully met when two or more
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

8
of the data set forth in the claim is used[,] or if there is some additional,
undefined information [that is] necessary in order to provide a warning.” Id.
Based on our review of the record, we do not sustain the rejection.
We agree with Appellant that one of ordinary skill “would understand that
[each of] claims 3–5 includes all determinations to provide warning of an
earthquake that takes into consideration, in any part, any of the recited
factors (in combination or otherwise).” Appeal Br. 26.
Thus, based on the foregoing, the Examiner does not support
adequately that any of claims 3–5 is indefinite. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3–5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).

Rejection III—Anticipation Rejection based on Raman, as Evidenced
by Ding, and Gade
Based on our review of the record, we determine that the Examiner
does not support adequately that Raman anticipates any of claims 2, 7–11,
13, 15–21, and 25. Thus, for the following reasons, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection.
Independent claim 2 recites the following (with emphases added):
2. A displacement measurement device, comprising:
a housing;
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver
disposed within the housing;
one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing,
the one or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground surf
ace, structure, or object;
an input/output interface;
a processor disposed within the housing; and
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

9
a computer readable medium disposed within the housing,
the computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set of
instructions executable by the processor, the set of instructions
comprising:
instructions to receive GNSS position data with the
GNSS receiver, the GNSS sensor having a GNSS
operating characteristic and a GNSS error characteristic;
instructions to observe seismic data with the one or
more seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors
each having a seismic operating characteristic and a
seismic error characteristic;
instructions to integrate the seismic data to
calculate a seismic sensor displacement value over a
specified sample period;
instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value
from the GNSS position data gathered over the specified
sample period;
instructions to combine the GNSS displacement
value with the seismic sensor displacement value in a
Kalman filter, based at least in part on the GNSS operating
characteristic and error characteristic and the seismic
operating characteristic and error characteristic wherein
the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value
with the seismic sensor displacement value in the Kalman
filter further includes:
instructions to estimate parameters of a
model equation for predicting the estimated
displacement value and the estimated velocity
value, based on an order of a function of the model
equation, the GNSS data, GNSS operating
characteristic, GNSS error characteristic, seismic
data, seismic operating characteristic, and seismic
error characteristic, and
instructions to update the estimated
parameters based on weighted measurements of the
GNSS data and seismic data;
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

10
instructions to determine, in real time, at least one
of an estimated displacement value or an estimated
velocity value from the combined GNSS and seismic
sensor displacement value; and
instructions to transmit the at least one of the
estimated displacement value or the estimated velocity
value using the input/output interface.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added). Appellant argues that the
Examiner errs in relying on Raman to anticipate independent claim 2,
because “Raman fails to teach or suggest . . . any use of seismic data,
seismic operating characteristics, [or] seismic error characteristics.’” See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 29; see Reply Br. 6. Based on our review of the record, we
agree with Appellant.
Raman is directed to “systems and methods for global differential
positioning.” Raman ¶ 1. In particular, Raman discloses “inertial
sensors 310 [that] transmit data related to the detected specific forces and
body rates 305 to a navigator 315, which estimates an inertial navigational
system (INS)-derived position and velocity of a vehicle based on the
transmitted data.” Id. ¶ 26 (bold omitted). That is, Raman uses sensors as
part of an inertial guidance system. Regardless of whether we agree with the
Examiner that Raman and Appellant use the same sensors (e.g.,
accelerometers) to collect data (see Answer 5–8), the Examiner still does not
support adequately that Raman collects “seismic” data—i.e., data relating to
an earthquake (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 5).
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 2. We also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 7–11, 13, and 15–21 that depend from, and
which the Examiner rejects with, independent claim 2. Further, we do not
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

11
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 25, which
recites a similar recitation to that discussed above with respect to claim 2.

Rejection IV—Obviousness Rejection based on Raman, Ding, and
Gade
For the reasons discussed above, the Examiner does not support
adequately that Raman discloses observing, or performing calculations on,
seismic data. Thus, inasmuch as the Examiner’s obviousness rejection relies
on Raman to disclose observation of and calculations with seismic data, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7–11, 13, 15–21, and 25
based on Raman, Ding, and Gade.

Rejection V—Obviousness Rejection based on Bock, Colombelli or
Admitted Prior Art, and Ding and Gade
As set forth above, claim 1 recites (with emphases added):
1. An earthquake early warning system, comprising:
a housing;
a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver disposed
within the housing;
one or more seismic sensors disposed within the housing, the one
or more seismic sensors coupled to one of a ground surf
ace, structure, or object;
an input/output interface;
a processor disposed within the housing; and
a computer readable medium disposed within the housing, the
computer readable medium having encoded thereon a set
of instructions executable by the processor, the set of
instructions comprising:
instructions to receive GNSS position data with the GNSS
receiver, the GNSS receiver having a GNSS
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

12
operating characteristic and a GNSS error
characteristic;
instructions to receive GNSS correction data over a
network connection or from a GNSS satellite;
instructions to correct the GNSS position data using the
GNSS correction data;
instructions to observe seismic data with the one or more
seismic sensors, the one or more seismic sensors
each having a seismic operating characteristic and a
seismic error characteristic;
instructions to integrate the seismic data to calculate a
seismic sensor displacement value over a specified
sample period;
instructions to calculate a GNSS displacement value from
the GNSS position data gathered over the specified
sample period;
instructions to combine the GNSS displacement value with
the seismic sensor displacement value in a Kalman
filter, based at least in part on the GNSS operating
characteristic and error characteristic and the
seismic operating characteristic and error
characteristic, wherein combining the GNSS
displacement and the seismic sensor displacement
value comprises performing at least a forward
filtering operation with the Kalman filter, wherein
the instructions to combine the GNSS displacement
value with the seismic sensor displacement value in
the Kalman filter further includes:
instructions to estimate parameters of a model
equation for predicting the estimated
displacement value and the estimated
velocity value, based on an order of a function
of the model equation, the GNSS data, GNSS
operating characteristic, GNSS error
characteristic, seismic data, seismic
operating characteristic, and seismic error
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

13
characteristic, and instructions to update the
estimated parameters based on weighted
measurements of the GNSS data and seismic
data;
instructions to determine, in real time, an estimated
displacement value and an estimated velocity
value from the combined GNSS and seismic
sensor displacement values;
instructions to calculate, in real time, a predominant
period, wherein the predominant period includes at
least two estimated displacements instructions to
calculate, in real time, a peak displacement during
the predominant period;
instructions to determine an intensity level of an
earthquake based at least in part on one or more of
the predominant period and the peak displacement;
and
instructions to transmit an earthquake warning indicating
the determined intensity level using the input/output
interface.
Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphases added).
In support of independent claim 1’s rejection, the Examiner relies on
Bock to disclose a system that includes a Kalman filter, and which measures
GNSS and seismic data. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 10–11. The Examiner
then finds that Gade discloses “that [a] Kalman filter is used to predict an
estimate[,] and then sources of information are weighed and a new updated
estimate is calculated,” and that Gade “represent[s] functions inherent in
such a Kalman filter.” Id. at 13–14. According to the Examiner, because
Gade discloses using a Kalman filter to weigh data from two inputs, based
on this disclosure in Gade, it would have been obvious to weigh Bock’s
GNSS and seismic data as inputs in Bock’s Kalman filter. See, e.g.,
Answer 9–10.
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

14
Gade is a presentation relating to inertial navigation and Kalman
filtering. Gade, slide 1. The Examiner relies on Gade’s slides 26 and 27 to
disclose how Kalman filtering weighs the data. See Non-Final Act. 13.
Gade’s slide 26 discloses a Kalman filter that “utilize[s]” “[t]wo sort of
information,” i.e., “[m]easurements from . . . sensors,” and “[a]
mathematical model of the system.” Gade slide 26 (emphases omitted).
Gade’s slide 27 discloses that the “Kalman filter is provided with an initial
estimate,” and that the Kalman filter “weigh[s]” “two sources of
information” and provide a “new updated estimate” for a mathematical
model. Id. slide 27. However, it appears that one of the source of
information is “uncertainty” of some characteristic, rather than an input from
a sensor, for example. Id.; see Appeal Br. 33–36; see Reply Br. 6–7.
Thus, consistent with the fact that Gade is directed to an inertial
navigation system and not an earthquake warning system, Gade does not
disclose updating estimated parameters of a model equation for predicting
estimated displacement and velocity values, where the updating is based on
weighted measurements of GNSS data and seismic data, as claimed.
Further, to the extent that the Examiner proposes to use Gade’s disclosure as
a reason to use Bock’s Kalman filter to weigh Bock’s GNSS and seismic
data, inasmuch as it is not clear that Gade discloses updating a model
equation after weighing data from two sources, but instead appears to
disclose updating a model equation after weighing further data and
uncertainty related to that data, the Examiner does not support adequately
that it would have been obvious to update estimated parameters of a model
equation for predicting estimated displacement and velocity values, where
Appeal 2019-002344
Application 14/466,975

15
the updating is based on weighted measurements of GNSS data and seismic
data, as claimed.
Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 2 and 25, which
recites a similar recitation to that discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Further, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3–11, 13,
and 15–24 that depend from independent claim 2.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s written-description, indefiniteness,
anticipation, and obviousness rejections of claims 1–11, 13, 15–25.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
5 112(a) Written description 5
3–5 112(b) Indefiniteness 3–5
2, 7−11, 13,
15–21, 25
102(a)(1) Raman, Ding, Gade 2, 7-11, 13,
15–21, 25
2, 7−11, 13,
15–21, 25
103 Raman, Ding, Gade 2, 7-11, 13,
15–21, 25
1–11, 13,
15–25
103 Bock, Admitted Prior
Art, Colombelli, Ding,
Gade
1–11, 13,
15–25
Overall Outcome: 1–11, 13,
15–25

REVERSED