NAVER Business Platform Corp.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2022

2020006489 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2022)

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. 16/163,925 10/18/2018 Weongi Park 16634-000144-US-COB 7551 30593 7590 03/01/2022 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER MADANI, FARIDEH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2022 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): dcmailroom@harnessip.com jcastellano@harnessip.com jhill@harnessip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WEONGI PARK, HO JIN LEE, JAEWOOK YOO, EUN YONG CHEONG, BYEONG-RYEOL SIM, and BYUNG-JO KIM _________________ Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 1-22. Appeal Br. 29-38 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed February 14, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 29, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed August 20, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed October 18, 2018 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Naver Business Platform Corp., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 2 We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to a surgical system and method for determining location information. See Abstract. Claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method of determining location information based on cell information, the method comprising: receiving, using at least one processor, cell information related to a base station servicing at least one mobile terminal; determining, using the at least one processor, approximate location information of the at least one mobile terminal based on the cell information using a location information database configured to store location information associated with a plurality of cell information; and transmitting, using the at least one processor, a location- based service to the at least one mobile terminal based on the determined approximate location information of the at least one mobile terminal, wherein the determining the approximate location information of the at least one mobile terminal based on the cell information includes, determining at least one neighboring base station adjacent to the base station servicing the at least one mobile terminal based on the cell information, estimating a location of the base station servicing the at least one mobile terminal based on cell identifier information of the at least one neighboring base station, calculating a centroid value of a cell covered by the base station servicing the at least one mobile terminal based on a cell shape corresponding to the estimated location of the base station, and Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 3 determining location information corresponding to the centroid value of the cell as location information of the at least one mobile terminal. Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Tischer US 2003/0117316 A1 June 26, 2003 Ikeda US 2008/0096661 A1 Apr. 24, 2008 Yaguchi US 2011/0238295 A1 Sept. 29, 2011 Wu US 2012/0309399 A1 Dec. 6, 2012 Zhu US 2013/0059604 A1 Mar. 7, 2013 Shin US 2013/0203438 A1 Aug. 8, 2013 Al-Mufti US 2014/0171105 A1 June 19, 2014 Thaker US 2014/0334264 A1 Nov. 13, 2014 Park US 10,142,958 B2 Nov. 27, 2018 REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1-22 stand rejected under the judicial doctrine of non- statutory double patenting over Claims 1-22 of Park. Final Act. 4-10. 2. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin and Al-Mufti. Final Act. 11-20. 3. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Thaker. Final Act. 20-21. 4. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Yaguchi. Final Act. 21. 5. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Tischer. Final Act. 22. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 4 6. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Ikeda. Final Act. 22-26. 7. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Zhu. Final Act. 26-28. 8. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Shin, Al-Mufti, and Wu. Final Act. 28. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 1-22: OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING. Claims 1-22 stand rejected under the judicial doctrine of non- statutory double patenting over Claims 1-22 of Park. Final Act. 4-10. Appellant does not traverse this ground. See Appeal Brief. Because Appellant presents no arguments directed to these rejections, they are summarily affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c) (“An appeal, when taken, is presumed to be taken from the rejection of all claims under Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 5 rejection unless cancelled by an amendment filed by the applicant and entered by the Office.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“[A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”); MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. March 2014) (“[T]he Board may summarily sustain any grounds of rejections not argued.”). CLAIMS 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, AND 21: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN AND AL-MUFTI. Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 1: Additionally, independent claims 11, 18, and 19 recite similar subject matter as independent claim 1, and are patentable for reasons at least somewhat similar to those discussed above with regard to independent claim 1 . . . . Moreover, claims 2-10, 12-17, and 20-22 are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency from allowable independent claims 1, 11, and 19. Appeal Br. 27. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of Claim 1, which we designate as representative, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 1 recites, inter alia: determining at least one neighboring base station adjacent to the base station servicing the at least one mobile terminal based on the cell information, [and] estimating a location of the base station servicing the at least one mobile terminal based on cell identifier information of the at least one neighboring base station. Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 6 Claim 1. The Examiner relies on Shin to teach these limitations. Final Act. 11-12 (citing Shin, ¶¶ 6, 31, 33, 46, 47, and 51). We agree with the Examiner findings that Shin discloses a mobile terminal that requires two SIM-cards and two base stations, each in differing networks and that Shin determines the location of the cellphone by utilizing a method that neither discloses, nor requires, calculation of a centroid. Final Act. 11-12. We agree with the Examiner findings that Al-Mufti discloses a method that uses only a single base station to calculate a centroid and thereupon calculates a location of the cellphone. Id., at 12-13. The Examiner finds: It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was tiled [sic] to have modified the teaching of SHIN to incorporate Al-Mufti’s teaching of measurement information and estimating the candidate location having minimum distance to the determined centroid for purpose of obtaining a precise location of wireless device. Final Act. 13-14; Ans. 11-12. Appellant argues this is merely a conclusory statement. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant argues Shin and Al-Mufti teach two, dissimilar methods to locate a cellphone and that the Examiner has provided no evidence that they could be combined without undue experimentation. Id., 25-26. Appellant further argues the Examiner “fails to allege any deficiency in the location determining method of Shin that would be improved upon by modifying the Shin method with the method of Al-Mufti.” Id., at 26. We agree with Appellant. Each of Shin, Al-Mufti, and the invention locates a cellphone. However, there is no evidence, of Record, that any of the three methods is superior to any of the others. Appellant argues: Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 7 The Examiner fails to provide any evidence that the method of Shin [two SIM-cards linked to two separate networks] could be successfully modified to use the method of Al-Mufti [a single SIM-card linked to a single network] without undue experimentation, and more importantly, fails to provide any evidence that the method of Al-Mufti would provide an improvement over the method of Shin. Appeal Br. 26. As Appellant argues, the Examiner’s combination is made: “without any explanation of how ‘estimating the candidate location having [a] minimum distance to the determined centroid [of centroid values]’ [the method of Al-Mufti] would be an improvement over the estimated location of the mobile device calculated by Shin.” Appeal Br. 26-27. We find that where each of Shin and Al-Mufti have solved the problem of locating a cellphone, the only reason to abandon each of these two successful methods is a hindsight attempt to reach the claims. In view of the forgoing we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CLAIMS 3 AND 13: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND THAKER. CLAIM 9: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND YAGUCHI. CLAIM 10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND TISCHER. CLAIM 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND IKEDA. CLAIM 20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND ZHU. CLAIM 22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER SHIN, AL-MUFTI, AND WU. Appellant contends all dependent claims are patentable in view of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 27. The Examiner does not separately argue the dependent claims. Ans. 12. Appeal 2020-006489 Application 16/163,925 8 In view of the forgoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-22 Double Patenting US Patent 10,142,958 B2 1-22 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14- 17, 19, 21 103 Shin, Al-Mufti 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 12, 14-17, 19, 21 3, 13 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Thaker 3, 13 9 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Yaguchi 9 10 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Tischer 10 18 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Ikeda 18 20 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Zhu 20 22 103 Shin, Al-Mufti, Wu 22 Overall Outcome: 1-22 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