Ex Parte Dawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2013

11304071 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARTIN DAWSON, JAMES WINTERBOTTOM, and MARTIN THOMSON ____________ Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to sharing location information data from a certified source (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of sending authenticated location data from a sender to a third party comprising: determining, by a processor of the sender, location data associated with a communication session initiated by a user, the determined location data being unauthenticated; sending, by a transmitter of the sender, the unauthenticated location data to an intermediary to give rise to authenticated location data, the intermediary having an authentication arrangement with the third party and a relationship with the sender; receiving, by a receiver of the sender, the authenticated location data from the intermediary in dependence on the relationship, wherein the authenticated location data is based on confirmation by the intermediary that the authenticated location data is consistent with a geographic extent of the sender; and sending, by the transmitter of the sender, the authenticated location data to the third party. Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Anantharaman WO 03/007542 A1 Jan. 23, 2003 TAKAHIRO KIKUCHI ET AL., Lifeline Communication System in the Internet, Proc. of the 2004 International Symposium on Applications and the Internet Workshops (SAINTW’04) (January 2004) (hereinafter “Kikuchi”). REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anantharaman. Claims 2, 8, and 13-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anantharaman and Kikuchi. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend Anantharaman’s certification server “does not confirm that the authenticated location data is consistent with a geographic extent of the sender” (App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue that “[m]atching two locations (likely simple coordinates of the wireless device) does not constitute confirming that the authenticated location data is consistent with the geographic extent of the sender” (App. Br. 7). Appellants further contend “[t]here is no hint here that [Anantharaman’s] sender (equated by the Examiner with the ‘wireless device’ of claim 1) would be the entity sending the authenticated location data to the third party,” and thus Anantharaman does not disclose or suggest Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 4 the claim 1 limitation “sending, by the transmitter of the sender, the authenticated location data to the third party” (App. Br. 7). We disagree with Appellants. Claim 1 does not specify the relative size of the claimed “geographic extent.” Further, Appellants’ Specification does not provide a special definition for the language “geographic extent.” Rather, in describing the feature of confirming location information provided by an enterprise against the known geographic extent of the enterprise, the Specification merely provides that “[s]uch a location validation system may be arbitrarily sophisticated and reflect the level of service the access provider is providing to the enterprise customers” (Spec. ¶ [0040]). Thus, we construe the language “geographic extent” according to its plain meaning, which we conclude is a geographical area. The Examiner finds (Ans. 15-16) Anantharaman discloses confirming a wireless device’s location is “Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.” (Anantharaman, p. 9, ll. 13- 14). As this defines a geographical area, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 16) and find Anantharaman’s certification server provides “confirmation . . . that the authenticated location data is consistent with a geographic extent of the sender,” as recited in claim 1. Further, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5-6, 16-18) and conclude it would have been obvious to modify Anantharaman such that the certification server would send the authenticated location data to the wireless device, which would then forward the information to the third party. Anantharaman provides sufficient motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to so modify the system by disclosing that “[w]hen messages originating from a wireless device are accompanied by certified and non-repudiable Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 5 location information, the value of the device may be substantially increased to the extent that location information may be required for security purposes in certain wireless transactions” (Anantharaman, p. 2, ll. 4-7). Moreover, Anantharaman describes an embodiment where after a location determination server verifies location information provided in a document sent by the wireless device, “[t]he location certification server then provides the information to the third party or to the wireless device for forwarding to the third party” (Anantharaman, p. 8, ll. 5-6) (emphasis added). We are therefore not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 3 and 9 not separately argued. Although Appellants nominally argue claims 4, 6, and 11 separately, the arguments presented are similar to the arguments presented for claim 1 (see App. Br. 8-9). Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 11 for the reasons discussed above. Claims 2, 8, and 13-21 Appellants contend Kikuchi’s geographic location information server does not constitute an “access provider,” and thus the combination of Anantharaman and Kikuchi fails to disclose “wherein the intermediary is an access provider,” as recited in claim 2. We disagree. Kikuchi discloses: [A] model that offers, guarantees, notifies and verifies the geographic location information on the Internet. As described above, a network administrator can guarantee the approximate geographic location information of a terminal which has an IP address on his network. Therefore, when requested by a user, the geographic location information server which is managed by the network administrator can sign to the binding of the IP address, the time information, and the geographic location Appeal 2011-002080 Application 11/304,071 6 information, and can issue the signed binding information as a geographic location information certificate to the user. (Kikuchi, Section 4.2). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9-10, 20-22) and find Kikuchi’s geographic location server as managed by a network administrator is an “access server” as claimed because it is used by the network administrator to manage the IP address of the terminals on its network which request geographic location information certificates. As one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood, an IP address is required for a terminal to gain access to the Internet, and thus by managing the terminals’ IP addresses, the geographic location server operates as an “access server.” We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, and claims 8 and 13-21 not separately argued. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13- 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13-21 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw