Ex Parte Boes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 2017

13826022 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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. 13/826,022 03/14/2013 Chad Christopher Boes 83337594 1608 28395 7590 08/04/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C /FfTET EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER ANWARI, MACEEH 22ND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3663 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/04/2017 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): docketing @brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAD CHRISTOPHER BOES, CHAD EVERT ESSELINK, ANDREW E. SHAFFER, and JUSTIN COUNTS Appeal 2015-0069521 Application 13/826,0222 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Mar. 14, 2013), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 27, 2015), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 21, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Oct. 24, 2014) and Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed June 22, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Ford Global Technologies, LLC.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2015-006952 Application 13/826,022 According to Appellants, their invention “relate[s] to a method and apparatus for enhanced driving experience including dynamic point of interest (POI) identification.” Spec. 11. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Appeal Br., Claims App. We reproduce claim 1, below, as illustrative of the appealed claims. 1. A system comprising: a processor configured to: receive vehicle coordinates; compare the vehicle coordinates to geo-fence coordinate sets of a plurality of geo-fences surrounding points of interest (POI), wherein at least a portion of each geo-fence is within a predetermined distance from the vehicle coordinates; receive information relating to the POI if the vehicle coordinates fall within the geo-fence coordinates; and instruct presentation of the received information to vehicle occupants. Id. REJECTION AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Breen (US 2008/0162034 Al, pub. July 3, 2008). ANALYSIS With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of the claim is in error, because Breen does not teach the claim recitation of “compar[ing] the vehicle coordinates to geo-fence coordinate sets of a plurality of geo-fences surrounding points of interest (POI), wherein at least a portion of each geo-fence is within a predetermined 2 Appeal 2015-006952 Application 13/826,022 distance from the vehicle coordinates.” Appeal Br., Claims App.; see also id. at 5—7. In other words, in the claimed comparison, the geo-fences are selected based on a relationship to the vehicle location. Based on our review of the record, including the Examiner’s Final Office Action and Answer, and Appellants’ Appeal and Reply Briefs, we determine that the Examiner does not establish adequately that Breen discloses the claimed comparison. Thus, for the reasons set forth below, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection. More specifically, we agree with Appellants’ understanding of Breen: In Breen, geo-fences along a route (or, allegedly, within some proximity to a route) are added to a library at the start of a journey. [0035] — [0038]; [0048]. No relationship between the current vehicle coordinates and any predetermined distance to these geo-fences is considered. They are selected based on a relationship to a route, not to vehicle location. [0048]. When a comparison is made, the comparison is then to all geo-fences in the library, again, regardless of spatial relationship to present vehicle coordinates. [0051]. Again, there is no teaching or suggestion of the comparison on the basis of the geo-fences being within a predetermined distance of the vehicle coordinates. Appeal Br. 7 (brackets and italics original, underlining added). For example, Breen states that “[i]n the step of determining if the current location is within a geo-fence 310, the processor 40 compares the current location of the asset 5 with the boundaries of the geo-fences in the set stored in the memory 50 of the telematics device 10 on the asset 5.” Breen | 50 (bold original). Thus, consistent with Appellants’ explanation above, Breen appears to compare the location of asset 5 to all geo-fences 130 regardless of the distance between the asset and the particular geo-fence (i.e., “at least a portion of each geo-fence” whose location is being compared to the location of the vehicle is not necessarily “within a predetermined distance from the 3 Appeal 2015-006952 Application 13/826,022 vehicle coordinates,” as required by the claim). Thus, we determine that Breen does not teach the claim limitation of “compar[ing] the vehicle coordinates to geo-fence coordinate sets of a plurality of geo-fences surrounding points of interest (POI), wherein at least a portion of each geo fence is within [a] predetermined distance from the vehicle coordinates.” Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner finds that Breen teaches the limitation under discussion because, in Breen, “the locations of geo-fences located along and around a route, a facility[,] or [a] landmark would be compared to the vehicle’s coordinates/location (see [F]ig. 4, [element numbers 300, 310,] ‘where the current vehicle’s location is compared with geo-fences[.]’” Answer 3 (underlining original, brackets added). However, this only establishes that Breen compares vehicle coordinates with geo-fence locations. The Examiner does not establish adequately that, in Breen, the vehicle coordinates are compared to geo fences that are each within a predetermined distance of the vehicle. For example, the Examiner’s findings do not address if, and if so how, Breen omits comparing locations to geo-fences outside of a predetermined distance. Thus, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Inasmuch as independent claims 8 and 15 recites similar limitations, and are rejected by the Examiner for similar reasons, as claim 1, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15. Further, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20 that depend from the independent claims. 4 Appeal 2015-006952 Application 13/826,022 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—20. REVERSED 5