Ex Parte Criel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 28, 201713062056 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation