Ex Parte Beaurepaire

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 8, 2017

13484471 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2017)

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. 13/484,471 05/31/2012 Jerome Beaurepaire P6319US00 2183 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER LANG, MICHAEL DEAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEROME BEAUREPAIRE Appeal 2016-004481 Application 13/484,471 Technology Center 3600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 49, 51, 53—55, 58, 59, 61, 63—65, and 68, all the pending claims in the present application. Claims 1—48, 50, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62, 66, and 67 are canceled. See Appeal Br., Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to presenting a comparison of progress information associated with transport modes, routes, or a combination thereof. See Spec., Abstract. Appeal 2016-004481 Application 13/484,471 Claim 49 is illustrative: 49. A method comprising: providing a user device progress information regarding an actual route being taken by a user of the user device from a origin to a destination; and providing the user device progress information about an alternative route from the origin to the destination, wherein the progress information about the alternative route from the origin to the destination is based, at least in part, on location information associated with at least another device traveling the alternative route from the origin to the destination, wherein the alternative route is different from the actual route take by the user of the user device from the origin to the destination, wherein the alternative route would have been taken when the actual route was taken, wherein the progress information comprises a comparison of travel times of the actual route being taken by the user of the user device and the alternative route being taken by the at least other device and includes at least start time from the origin and time remaining to the destination for each of the actual route and the alternative route, and wherein the comparison of travel times of the actual route and the alternative route is performed before a trip from the origin to the destination, during the trip from the origin to the destination, and after the trip from the origin to the destination. Appellant appeals the following rejections: Rl. Claims 49, 51, 54, 58, 59, 61, 64, and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Forstall (US 2009/0005018 Al, Jan. 1, 2009); and R2. Claim 53, 55, 63, and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forstall and Marsh (US 2007/0010941 Al, Jan. 11, 2007). 2 Appeal 2016-004481 Application 13/484,471 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). ANALYSIS Rejection under § 102(b) Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Forstall discloses an alternative route from the origin to the destination, as set forth in claim 49? Appellant contends that “there is no description in paragraph [0088] regarding ‘providing the user device progress information about an alternative route from the orisin to the destination,. . . wherein the alternative route is different from the actual route takefn1 by the user’'’ (App. Br. 9). We agree with Appellant. Although the Examiner finds that “Forstall discloses that multiple users can share their respective locations and route information in real time with each other and further their location and their respective routes can be displayed to other users’ mobile devices” (Ans. 2) (emphasis added), we find that the Examiner fails to illustrate where precisely Forstall discloses “respective routes” for each user. Instead, Forstall merely discloses: The route map 810 can include a map of the route path with the location of the user and Mike. . . . The directions to Mike 814 can include the directions a user can follow to locate Mike on the route. The route directions 816 can include the directions a user can follow to complete the route, without regard to Mike’s location. 3 Appeal 2016-004481 Application 13/484,471 (1 88). Forstall further discloses that “[t]he user’s location on the route 902 and Mike’s location on the route 904 can be depicted on the multi-touch- sensitive display of the mobile device 100, as shown in Fig. 9” (1 89). In other words, Forstall merely discloses a single route, i.e., both the user and Mike are on the same route, with both the user’s and Mike’s locations shown thereon, i.e., locations 902 and 904 (see Fig. 9). The Examiner has not shown where Forstall discloses an alternative route from the same origin to the destination, wherein the alternative route is different from the actual route taken, as set forth in independent claim 49, and similarly recited in independent claim 59. Instead, the Examiner has merely directed our attention to a single route that includes both people on it. The Examiner further concludes that “Forstall would indeed be capable of performing the method of providing the user device progress information about an alternative route from the origin to the destination” (Ans. 2) (emphasis added). The difficulty, however, that we have with the anticipation rejection before us is that there is no certainty from the Forstall reference itself as to what specific technique is being used to present the aforementioned alternative route. Forstall merely discloses determining whether a second mobile device is on a route being used by a first user, based on the route data and location data of the second device. Although it seems logical that one such alternative route could be determined by Forstall’s system, the Examiner has not shown in the cited portions that Forstall is even concerned with such an alternative route and it is impermissible to make guesses in an anticipation rejection. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not set forth a sufficient initial showing of anticipation, and we find that Appellant has shown error in the Examiner’s 4 Appeal 2016-004481 Application 13/484,471 rejection of independent claim 49, and similarly independent claim 59. The Examiner further has not shown that Marsh makes up for the deficiencies of Forstall under the § 103 rejection of claims 53, 55, 63, and 65. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 49, 51, 53—55, 58, 59, 61, 63—65, and 68. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 49, 51, 53—55, 58, 59, 61, 63—65, and 68 under R1 and R2 is reversed. REVERSED 5