QUALCOMM Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 1, 2021

2019004153 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 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. 15/189,501 06/22/2016 Sai Pradeep VENKATRAMAN QC161686 9314 12371 7590 01/01/2021 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 EXAMINER SHAO, HONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/01/2021 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAI PRADEEP VENKATRAMAN and CARLOS HORACIO ALDANA Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, 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 1–4, 6–12, 14–20, 22–26, and 28–30.2 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 Qualcomm, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 5, 13, 21, and 27 in the Answer, which are no longer on appeal. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “wireless communications, and more particularly to wireless local area network (WLAN) access point (AP) positioning and navigation systems.” Spec. ¶ 1. The disclosure is directed to “assisting or otherwise performing position determination based on both fine timing measurement (FTM)-based round trip time (RTT) measurements and non-FTM-based RTT measurements.” Spec. ¶ 9. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method performed by a wireless station, the method comprising: performing a fine timing measurement (FTM) procedure with each of one or more FTM-enabled access points (APs) to obtain a respective one or more FTM-based round-trip time (RTT) measurements between the wireless station and each of the one or more FTM-enabled APs, wherein the FTM procedure comprises: exchanging at least one FTM message with an FTM-enabled AP of the one or more FTM-enabled APs; and calculating an FTM-based RTT measurement of the one or more FTM-based R TT measurements based on the exchanging of the at least one FTM message; performing a non-FTM procedure with each of one or more non-FTM-enabled APs to obtain a respective one or more non-FTM-based RTT measurements, wherein the non-FTM procedure comprises: transmitting a non-FTM message from the wireless station to a non-FTM-enabled AP of the one or more non- FTM-enabled APs; receiving a non-FTM response message from the non-FTM-enabled AP of the one or more non-FTM- enabled APs in response to the non-FTM message; and Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 3 calculating a non-FTM-based RTT measurement of the one or more non-FTM-based RTT measurements based on a difference between a time of arrival of the non- FTM response message and a time of departure of the non- FTM message; and calculating a position of the wireless station based on both the one or more FTM-based RTT measurements and the one or more non-FTM-based RTT measurements. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Steiner et al. US 2014/0335885 A1 Nov. 13, 2014 Do et al. US 2015/0126217 A1 May 7, 2015 Zhang et al. US 9,474,041 B1 Oct. 18, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner and Zhang. Final Act. 3. Claims 2–4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Zhang and Do. Final Act. 7. Claims 9, 15, 16, 17, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner and Zhang. Final Act. 11. Claims 10–12, 14, 18–20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Zhang and Do. Final Act. 11. Claims 25, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner and Zhang. Final Act. 11. Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 4 Claims 26 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Zhang and Do. Final Act. 11. REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant’s claims generally recite a process by which the position of a wireless station is determined by performing both a fine timing measurement (FTM) locating procedure with FTM-enabled access points, and performing a non-FTM locating procedure with non-FTM-enabled access points, and then calculating the position based on the results of both procedures. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusion of Obviousness The Examiner finds that Steiner teaches the use of an FTM-based procedure, and Zhang teaches the use of a non-FTM-based procedure. Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner further relies on Zhang as teaching calculating the position of the wireless station based on both FTM and non-FTM measurements because Zhang teaches that its location determination procedure can be extended to support wireless stations supporting FTM. Final Act. 5; Advisory Act. 2 (citing Zhang, col. 17, ll. 4–30). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Zhang’s statement that “the AP-centric TDoA locationing procedure can be extended to the case where the client station supports the FTM exchange,” as evidence that Zhang also relies on FTM measurements for a location determination. Advisory Act. 2. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the references as follows: Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang as mentioned above as a modification to Steiner, such that the combination would allow to a non-FTM procedure for legacy network devices with an AP- Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 5 centric TDoA location procedure, in order to extend support of locating procedure, remove clock offsets without performing any extra synchronization exchanges, and make calibration procedure more simple with high accuracy without using circuit calibration at the APs/client stations. Final Act. 5–6. Appellant’s Contentions Challenging the rejection under § 103, Appellant argues Zhang fails to teach or suggest “calculating a position of the wireless station based on both the one or more FTM-based RTT measurements and the one or more non- FTM measurements” for several reasons. Appeal Br. 6–9. First, Appellant contends that Zhang’s “‘STA 104’ is not capable of FTM-based measurements, and therefore is not capable of calculating a position based on ‘both’ the FTM-based ‘and’ the non-FTM-based RTT measurements.” Appeal Br. 6. Second, Appellant argues that Zhang’s description does not teach the use of both FTM and non-FTM measurement, but instead contemplates the use of one or the other—non-FTM in legacy devices that do not support FTM, or FTM where the device supports it. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Zhang col. 1, ll. 6–16). In the case of FTM-supporting devices, Appellant asserts that “Zhang at best suggests calculating position based on both an FTM- based RTT measurement (i.e., TDoA) and yet another FTM-based RTT measurement (i.e., ToF).” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant urges that “Zhang is, at best, ambiguous regarding whether the ‘AP-centric TDoA locationing procedure’ can properly be described as ‘non-FTM’, and that the most likely reading is that TDoA is equally applicable in either an FTM context or a non-FTM context.” Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 6 Third, Appellant argues the Examiner has improperly combined the teachings of from four separate embodiments in Zhang. See Appeal Br. 8, Reply Br. 3–10. Our Review We do not find Appellant’s first argument, that Zhang’s wireless station is not capable of FTM-based measurements (Appeal Br. 6–7) and therefore does not teach “calculating a position of the wireless station based on both the . . . FTM-based RTT measurement and the . . . non-FTM-based RTT measurements,” persuasive of error. This argument attacks Zhang in isolation, where the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Steiner and Zhang. The Examiner relies on Steiner as teaching performing FTM- based measurement, a finding not disputed by Appellant. Final Act. 3 (citing Steiner Figs. 1, 3, ¶¶ 3, 19, and 20). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that, although Zhang’s wireless station “may include a legacy client station that does not implement the FTM procedure (Col 18, lines 40- 42), however Zhang doesn't restrict STA 104 as a legacy device only.” Ans. 3. Instead, Zhang teaches that non-legacy client devices that support FTM exchange may be used to obtain time of flight TOF distances to access points. Zhang col. 16, ll. 17-57; col. 17, ll. 25–30. We also do not find Appellant’s second argument, that Zhang’s description does not teach the use of both FTM and non-FTM measurement, but instead contemplates the use of one or the other, persuasive of error. In essence, Appellant’s claimed invention involves using an FTM procedure when an access point supports FTM, using a non-FTM procedure in legacy access points that do not, and relying on their collective results to calculate the position of the wireless device. Appellant does not dispute that the use Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 7 of FTM procedures were known (and taught by Steiner) or that non-FTM procedures were known (and taught by Zhang). Nor does Appellant dispute that Steiner’s FTM procedure calculates a position of a wireless device based on the RTT measurement obtained from the FTM procedure, or that Zhang’s non-FTM procedure similarly calculates a position based on the RTT measurement obtained from the non-FTM procedure. Appellant’s argument, at its core, is that there is no single reference that teaches using both FTM-based RTT measurements and non-FTM-based RTT measurements to calculate the position of the wireless device. However, under § 103, there is no requirement that a single reference disclose the recited “calculating” step. Under § 103, we ascertain what would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art possessing the teachings of the relevant prior art. We agree with the Examiner that the performing such a calculation would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Steiner and Zhang. As we noted above, Appellant does not dispute that Steiner teaches a wireless device calculating its location based on FTM-based RTT measurements. Nor does Appellant dispute that Zhang teaches that a wireless device may calculate its location based on non-FTM-based RTT measurements. Nor can it be reasonably disputed that the use of blended networks having both legacy and non-legacy access points was known in the prior art. See Zhang col. 17, ll. 4–11 (contemplating networks having both FTM-capable access points and legacy devices which are “may not implement the FTM procedure and therefore may be unable to participate in FTM-based locationing.”). In a network having both types of access points available for location-determining purposes, it follows naturally then, that Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 8 “calculating a position of the wireless station” would be accomplished by implementing both types of procedures. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Thus, even if Appellant were correct that Zhang teaches using either FTM or non-FTM, but not both, Steiner’s use of FTM measurements in combination with Zhang’s use of non-FTM measurements merely applies two known measurement techniques, and Appellant has not shown that “the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to produce a predictable result.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.3 Appellant’s third argument posits that the Examiner erred in relying on teachings from separate embodiments in Zhang. In rejections made under § 102, it is improper to combine embodiments to find a claim anticipated. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[I]t is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”). However, this rejection is made under § 103, which is an “expansive and flexible approach,” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, and does not impose the 3 We note that Appellant does not argue that it was uniquely challenging to determine whether a network device supports FTM or not, nor does Appellant argue that it was uniquely challenging to combine the results of non-FTM and FTM measurements into a single measurement value. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 9 “strict identity” requirement for a finding of anticipation. An obviousness rejection allows for the use of multiple embodiments so long as the Examiner articulates sufficient reasoning for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to do so. In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Whether a rejection is based on combining disclosures from multiple references, combining multiple embodiments from a single reference, or selecting from large lists of elements in a single reference, there must be a motivation to make the combination and a reasonable expectation that such a combination would be successful, otherwise a skilled artisan would not arrive at the claimed combination.”). Although Appellant argues against combining the various teachings of the prior art, including those in Zhang, we observe that Appellant does not address the Examiner’s specific articulated reasoning for combining the teachings: [T]he combination would allow to a non-FTM procedure for legacy network devices with an AP-centric TDoA location procedure, in order to extend support of locating procedure, remove clock offsets without performing any extra synchronization exchanges, and make calibration procedure more simple with high accuracy without using circuit calibration at the APs/client stations. Final Act. 6. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding the use of teachings from among Zhang’s multiple embodiments. Because we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We similarly sustain the rejection of independent claims 9, 17, and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and not separately argued. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–16, 18– Appeal 2019-004153 Application 15/189,501 10 20, 22–24, 26, and 28–30, not argued separately. We note the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5, 13, 21, and 27, therefore, these claims are not before us. Ans. 3. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 7–9, 15–17, 23– 25, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner and Zhang. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–4, 6, 10–12, 14, 18–20, 22, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Steiner, Zhang and Do. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7–9, 15– 17, 23–25, 29, 30 103 Steiner and Zhang 1, 7–9, 15– 17, 23–25, 29, 30 2–4, 6, 10– 12, 14, 18– 20, 22, 26, 28 103 Steiner, Zhang and Do 2–4, 6, 10– 12, 14, 18– 20, 22, 26, 28 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–12, 14–20, 22– 26, 28–30 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED