Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2017

13731786 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 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. 13/731,786 12/31/2012 Patricia R. Chang 20120892 1731 25537 7590 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER HARMON, COURTNEY N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/27/2017 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): patents @ verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PATRICICA R. CHANG, SAGIV DRAZNIN, ARDA AKSU, STEVEN R. RADOS, THOMAS W. HAYNES, DEEPAK KAKADIA, PRISCILLA LAU, JOHN F. MACIAS, and DONNA L. POLEHN Appeal 2017-006151 Application 13/731,786 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—12, 14, and 16—23, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2017-006151 Application 13/731,786 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to cellular telephones. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 8 is exemplary: 8. A user device, comprising: one or more memory devices to store a set of instructions; and one or more processors to execute the instructions, to: receive information regarding a plurality of modes that have been generated and shared by one or more users, a particular mode indicating: a set of conditions based on which the particular mode is to be activated, the set of conditions including a condition that specifies a geographic location, the set of conditions having been specified by the one or more users, and a set of information to be presented when the mode is activated, the set of information having been specified by the one or more users; receive a selection of a particular mode, from the list of modes; obtain, from a server device, the selected mode; monitor a geographic location of the user device to determine a present geographic location of the user device; compare the present geographic location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions associated with the selected mode; determine, based on comparing the present geographical location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions, that the set of conditions associated with the selected mode has been satisfied; activate the mode, based on determining that the set of conditions has been satisfied; and automatically present at least a portion of the set of information, based on activating the mode, the automatic presentation occurring at a time that corresponds a time at 2 Appeal 2017-006151 Application 13/731,786 which the present geographic location of the user device was determined. References and Rejections Claims 8—12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Zheng (US 2009/0126435, pub. Aug. 27, 2009). Claims 1, 3—7, 14, and 16—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Zheng and Walker (US 8,655,307, iss. Feb. 18, 2014). ANALYSIS1 Anticipation We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Zheng disclose “compare the present geographic location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions associated with the selected mode; determine, based on comparing the present geographical location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions, that the set of conditions associated with the selected mode has been satisfied; activate the mode, based on determining that the set of conditions has been satisfied” as recited in independent claim 8 (emphases added). See App. Br. 9—16; Reply Br. 2—9. 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal 2017-006151 Application 13/731,786 The Examiner cites a number of Zheng’s figures and paragraphs for teaching the above limitations. See Final Act. 10—11; Ans. 2—6. We have reviewed the cited Zheng portions, and they do not disclose “compare the present geographic location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions associated with the selected mode; determine, based on comparing the present geographical location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions, that the set of conditions associated with the selected mode has been satisfied; activate the mode, based on determining that the set of conditions has been satisfied” as required by claim 8 (emphases added). In particular, the Examiner’s assertion that “the user’s current present location is compared to What’s Hot” (Ans. 4) is unsupported by the record. Zheng discloses “what’s hot” as follows: “The exemplary web UI 202 includes various options, including ... a navigation option 308 for browsing for past trips via calendar based browsing or map-based browsing, and a “what’s hot” option 310 for accessing the recommendations engine 236 in order to find a popular or suggested travel route, commercial establishment, or popular location.” Zheng 143. Contrary to the Examiner’s unsupported assertion, Zhang does not disclose “comparing the present geographical location of the user device to the geographic location included in the set of conditions,” as required by the claim. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of corresponding dependent claims 9-12 and 23. 4 Appeal 2017-006151 Application 13/731,786 Obviousness The Examiner cites an additional reference for the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 14, and 16—22. The Examiner relies on Zheng in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 8, and does not rely on the additional reference in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the mapping based on Zheng, as discussed above. See Final Act. 14—28. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3—7, 14, and 16—22. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—12, 14, and 16-23. REVERSED 5