Ex Parte Chao et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 11, 2019

11323850 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/323,850 12/30/2005 Yi-Chung Chao 111332 7590 01/15/2019 Perspectives Law Group, Corp. 3150 De La Cruz Blvd. Suite 206 Santa Clara, CA 95054 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 59-006 4478 EXAMINER DHRUV, DARSHAN I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2498 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/15/2019 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): efs@perspectiveslaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YI-CHUNG CHAO, ROBERT RENNARD, and HAIPING JIN Appeal2017-006256 1 Application 11/323,8502 Technology Center 2400 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed March 22, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 1, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 1, 2016) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed October 15, 2015). 2 Appellants identify Telenav, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2017-006256 Application 11/323,850 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to hybrid systems, and more particularly, to a system for a location based services and navigation system wherein a client and a server communicate to carry out the location based service and navigation tasks" (Spec. ,r 1 ). Claims 1, 6, and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An intelligent location based services and navigation hybrid method with a client having location based service capability and a server comprising: setting a condition for updates of relevant information including updates when the client may enter a no server access region based on sampled relevant information including navigation and point of interest information in surrounding service areas of the no server access region; selecting the relevant information for the updates by the server or the client, or a combination thereof; transmitting the relevant information from the server or the client; receiving the updates of the relevant information by the server or the client; and selecting an operational mode by the client. REJECTION Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Mahonen (US 2006/0089152 Al, pub. Apr. 27, 2006), Reich (US 2007/0143017 Al, pub. June 21, 2007), and Laird et al. (US 2005/0075116 Al, pub. Apr. 7, 2005) ("Laird"). 2 Appeal2017-006256 Application 11/323,850 ANALYSIS Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-5 We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) because none of Mahonen, Reich, or Laird, individually or in combination, discloses or suggests "setting a condition for updates of relevant information including updates when the client may enter a no server access region based on sampled relevant information including navigation and point of interest information in surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-15). Mahonen is directed to location-based synchronization of mobile terminals, and discloses methodology that "makes it possible to have the content of the mobile terminal be dependent on a current position/location of the mobile terminal" (Mahonen Abstract). Mahonen discloses at paragraph 63, cited by the Examiner, that when the mobile terminal changes its location from a first location ( at the start of a predetermined time interval) to a second location ( at the end of the predetermined time interval), a location-based synchronization is initiated if the distance between the first and second locations exceeds a predetermined distance during the predetermined time interval. In that situation, application content is sent to the mobile terminal specific to the location of the terminal at the end of the predetermined time period (id. ,r 63). Mahonen, thus, discloses updating a client with location information if the distance between first and second locations exceeds a predetermined distance. But we find nothing in the cited portions of Mahonen that discloses or suggests that "a condition for updates ... include[ es] updates 3 Appeal2017-006256 Application 11/323,850 when the client may enter a no server access region based on sampled relevant information ... in surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as called for in claim 1. Reich discloses a GPS device that includes, inter alia, a data store for storing mapping data (i.e., geographic navigation bundles that include street level mapping data for a particular geographical area) and a predictive algorithm that ensures that suitable data are located within the data store prior to the time that the data are needed by the GPS device (Reich ,r 11 ). Reich describes that the predictive algorithm can be optionally configured to retrieve data far enough in advance to ensure that a lack of wireless connectivity over a geographical region is not problematic, e.g., the GPS device could be configured with a 40 mile update buff er; therefore, so long as the region that lacks wireless connectivity is less than or equal the update buffer region, the GPS device can function without interruption (id. ,r 12). Reich also discloses that the predicative algorithm can use navigation information, e.g., roadway connections, so that, for example, if the navigation information indicates that the current road curves south so that the vehicle is likely to enter a particular grid zone, the geographical navigation bundle of that grid zone can be retrieved (id. ,r 48). However, we find nothing in the cited portions of Reich that discloses or suggests retrieving updates based on "sampled relevant information ... in surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as called for in claim 1. We also find no such disclosure or suggestion in the cited portions of Laird. Laird is directed to a wireless virtual campus escort system, and describes that the system monitors the progress of a user along a route by 4 Appeal2017-006256 Application 11/323,850 monitoring the location and movement of the user's mobile handset (Laird ,r 5). Laird discloses in paragraph 108, cited by the Examiner, that current and predicted information about the quality of the GPS signal coverage for the campus and along potential route segments is stored, and is used by users in selecting routes that have maximum signal coverage and avoiding routes that have spotty or non-existent coverage. But we find nothing in this paragraph, or elsewhere in the cited portions of Laird, that discloses or suggests that a condition is set for updates based on information in areas surrounding the spotty or non-existent GPS coverage areas, i.e., "in surrounding service areas of the no server access region," as called for in claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("dependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). Independent Claims 6 and 11 and Dependent Claims 7-10 and 12-20 Independent claims 6 and 11 include language substantially similar to the language of independent claim 1, and stand rejected based on the same rationale applied with respect to claim 1 (Final Act. 6). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of independent claims 6 and 11, and claims 7-10 and 12-20, which depend therefrom, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. 5 Appeal2017-006256 Application 11/323,850 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 6