Ex Parte Criel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13062056 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 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.
13/062,056 06/22/2011 Johan Georges Prosper Criel LUTZ 201235US01 1307
48116 7590 03/30/2017
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor BARAKAT, MOHAMED
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 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 @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHAN GEORGES PROSPER CRIEL,
MARC BRUNO FRIEDA GODON,
MICHAEL FREDERIK FRANCOIS ALBERT BRACKX,
SIGURD VAN BROECK, ZHE LOU,
LIEVEN TRAPPENIERS, and
LAURENCE ANNIE HUGO MARIE CLAEYS
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3—10. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1,3,4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 2—3.
Claims 1, 3—7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Saga (US 2006/0226970 Al; Oct. 12, 2006). Final Act. 3—6.
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Saga,
Naressi (WO 2005/081086 Al; Sept. 1, 2005), and Ashwood Smith (US
2007/0008130 Al; Jan. 11, 2007). Final Act. 6-7.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “resolving a service to be provisioned
to a terminal device.” Spec. 1:6—7. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A system for resolving a service to be provisioned to a terminal
device by a service resolving server, the terminal device being coupled over
a communications network to the service resolving server, the terminal
device comprising an auto-identification reader for reading an auto­
identification associated with an object or person, wherein the system further
comprises:
a first context retrieving part, adapted to retrieve sensor based context
information,
wherein the context retrieving part is located in the
terminal device and adapted to retrieve context information associated with
the context of the terminal device, and
a service resolving part, that is adapted to resolve the service
from a plurality of services based on the auto-identification in combination
with the context information.
ANALYSIS
The Indefiniteness Rejection of Claims 1,3,4, and 9
The Examiner concludes claims 1,3,4, and 9 are indefinite. Final
Act. 2—3. The Examiner explains: “Claim 1 recites the limitation ‘the context
2
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
retrieving part’ in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this
limitation in the claim.” Final Act. 3.
Appellants argue: “the term context retrieving part is defined earlier
[in] claim 1, no antecedent basis issue exists in claim 1 or claims 3, 4 and 9
dependent therefrom.” App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner further explains: “The prior instance in
claim 1 is ‘a first context retrieving part’ thereby the second instance ‘the
context retrieving part’ has no antecedent basis.” Ans. 10.
We agree with the Examiner, and concur with the Examiner’s
conclusion.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claim
1, 3, 4, and 9.
The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1,3-7,9, and 10 by Saga
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9
The Examiner finds Saga describes all limitations of claim 1. Final
Act. 3^4 (citing Saga ^fl[ 39, 88—90); see also Saga Figure 4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. Saga’s emergency escape paths are not “services” as claimed.
See App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 3, 4 (“The Examiner has not described a
plurality of individual services but has instead described elements of a single
service, namely, disaster prevention.”).
ii. “Saga contemplates a terminal device retrieving context
information related to the context of a guide light. Instead of gathering such
information on its own, the terminal device disclosed in Saga reads it from
an RFID tag found on the guide light.” App. Br. 6.
We reviewed the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
3
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Saga (139) discloses:
A mobile terminal 12a held by an evacuee or a firefighter
near the guide light 10a reads data stored in the RFID tag 11 a,
and sends the data to the server 13. The data includes location
of the guide light 10a, temperature, humidity, smoke emission, a
communication record of the mobile terminal 12a, and so forth.
Saga (11 88—91) discloses:
The mobile terminal 12 receives the data (step S102),
displays the data on a built-in screen (step S103), and sends the
data to the server 13 (step S104).
The communication unit 130 in the server 13 receives the
data from the mobile terminal 12 (step S105).
The storage unit 133 in the server 13 stores and manages
the data received. Based on stored data, the status determination
unit 134 in the server 13 monitors and analyzes a location of a
fire breakout, a status of fire extinction, an optimal escape path,
a present location of each mobile terminal 12 that communicated
with the RFID tag 11, and so forth (step S106).
The communication unit 130 in the server 13 sends results
of the analysis (hereinafter, “results”) to the mobile terminal 12
(step S107), and the processing performed by the server 13 ends.
Thus, Saga teaches claim 1 ’s limitations: “a first context retrieving
part, adapted to retrieve sensor based context information, wherein the
context retrieving part is located in the terminal device and adapted to
retrieve context information associated with the context of the terminal
device” (Saga’s mobile terminal 12 includes a first context retrieving part
because terminal 12 retrieves context information from RFID tag 11. The
retrieved data includes location as well as sensor-based data (context). At
4
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
the time of retrieval, mobile terminal 12 is near RFID tag 11, so the context
information is applicable to both mobile terminal 12 and RFID tag 11).
And thus, Saga further teaches the claimed “a service resolving part”
(server 13), “that is adapted to resolve the service from a plurality of
services based on the auto-identification in combination with the context
information” limitations (for example, server 13 resolves service from a
plurality of services (sends analysis results; for example, an optimal escape
route is resolved from possible escape routes) based on retrieved location in
combination with other retrieved sensor-based data).
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), Appellants’ Specification does
not define the term “services” but does disclose:
The service to be provisioned to the terminal device may be the
sending of digital content such as a movie a picture or a
soundtrack towards the terminal device TD, setting up a phone
call, making a certain payment, playing a song and/or a movie on
a screen with attached speakers associated with the auto-
identification etc.
Spec. 2:26-30.
In light of this disclosure, we do not find the Examiner’s construction
of “services” as including escape paths to be overly-broad or otherwise
unreasonable. We emphasize the Specification describes sending a picture
as an example of a service.
Further, in reaching our conclusion, we emphasize that an optimal
escape route is resolved from possible escape routes. That is, each possible
escape route is an individual service, and the optimal escape route is
resolved from the possible escape routes.
5
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
Regarding Appellants’ argument (ii), as explained above, at the time
of retrieval, mobile terminal 12 is near RFID tag 11, so the context
information is applicable to both mobile terminal 12 and RFID tag 11.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 3, 4, and 9, which are not separately argued with particularity.
Claims 5 and 10
Appellants further argue: “Saga contemplates a terminal device
retrieving context information related to the context of a guide light. Instead
of gathering such information on its own, the terminal device disclosed in
Saga reads it from an RFID tag found on the guide light.” App. Br. 6—7; see
also Reply Br. 4.
This argument does not show any error in the Examiner’s findings for
reasons explained above when addressing claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, as well as
claim 10, which is not separately argued with particularity.
Claims 6 and 7
Appellants further argue: Saga’s emergency escape paths are not
“services” as claimed. See App. Br. 7—8.
This argument does not show any error in the Examiner’s findings for
reasons explained above when addressing claim 1.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, as well as
claim 7, which is not separately argued with particularity.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 8 over Saga, Naressi, and
Ashwood Smith
The Examiner finds Saga, Naressi, and Ashwood Smith teach all
limitations of claim 8, finding Naressi and Ashwood Smith teach particular
6
Appeal 2016-007182
Application 13/062,056
services recited in claim 8 (“sending digital content, setting up phone calls,
making payments, playing a song, and playing a movie”). Final Act. 6—7.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. “Saga fails to disclose selecting a service from among a
plurality of services.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 5.
ii. Naressi and Ashwood Smith also do not disclose selecting a
service from among a plurality of services. See App. Br. 8; see also Reply
Br. 5.
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments (i) and (ii), as discussed above
when addressing claim 1, Saga’s optimal escape route is resolved from
possible escape routes. That is, each possible escape route is an individual
service, and the optimal escape route is resolved from the possible escape
routes.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—10 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
7