Ex Parte Feldman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 13, 2016

10999994 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 10/999,994 12/01/2004 Israel Feldman 26486 7590 04/15/2016 BURNS & LEVINSON, LLP 125 SUMMER STREET BOSTON, MA 02110 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. OLS-004DIV 6419 EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2016 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@burnslev.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ISRAEL FELDMAN, ARIE TRINKER, YOCHAI MELTZER, ALLON ESHP AR, and AMNON LOTEM Appeal2014-003224 Application 10/999 ,994 Technology Center 3600 Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, JILL D. HILL, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. Hill, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Israel Feldman et al. ("Appellants") appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 Claims 2, 19, 20, and 49-70 are withdrawn, and claims 3-15, 17, 18, 21- 26, 35, 37, and 46 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2014-003224 Application 10/999 ,994 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Sole independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. The key disputed limitation is italicized. 1. A method for modeling and processing vehicular traffic data, comprising the steps of: generating a representation of a road network associated with the vehicular traffic data, the road network comprising a plurality of road sections; and acquiring vehicular traffic data associated with said road network from a plurality of mobile sensors in communication with a wireless telecommunication network, wherein acquiring vehicular traffic data comprises selecting a sample comprising vehicle-carried mobile sensors from the plurality of mobile sensors and tracking locations of said vehicle- carried mobile sensors of said sample over the road network, the method further including a procedure for protecting privacy of individuals associated with said vehicle-carried mobile sensors, comprising tracking locations of said vehicle- carried mobile sensors of said sample without identifYing tracked vehicles by using phone numbers, and keeping identities of the vehicle=carried mobile sensors \'l1ithin the location of the \'l1ireless telecommunications network so that privacy of the individuals associated with said vehicle carried mobile sensors are protected. Appeal Br. 15, Claims App. (emphasis added). THE REJECTION Claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Lapidot (US 6,341,255 Bl; iss. Jan. 22, 2002). 2 Appeal2014-003224 Application 10/999 ,994 ANALYSIS Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that Lapidot fails to disclose the step of tracking locations of vehicle-carried mobile sensors without identifying tracked vehicles by using phone numbers, as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 6. Appellants also argue that "[t]he absence of the term 'phone number' in [Lapidot] provides no reason to conclude that the reference discloses tracking locations ... without identifying tracked vehicles by using phone numbers." Reply Br. 7. Appellants reason that "[c]onsidering that Lapidot does not discuss any privacy considerations, there are no reasons to conclude that cell phones described in the reference would send signals and messages without using phone numbers." Id. at 6. The Examiner responds that Lapidot "is completely silent of the term 'phone number,' [h]ence, Lapidot '255 does not use any telephone numbers to identify tracked vehicles." Ans. 5. The Examiner asserts that, although Lapidot relies on sending and receiving text messages to track cell phones, "[u]sing a phone number could be one of many means to identify a mobile device's location, but it is not ... [the] only means." Id. at 6. The Examiner notes that Lapidot discloses that a vehicle may be tracked with a GPS device, as well. Id. at 7. The Examiner reasons that "[ s ]ince tracking the GPS location using a GPS signal is the same as tracking the vehicle location it implies that phone numbers are not used." Id. Lapidot discloses a method of tracking vehicles by automatically and repeatedly sending messages from a mobile phone. See Lapidot, col. 6, 11. 8-11. The Examiner contends that, despite using messages from a mobile phone to track the vehicle, a phone number does not have to be used to identify the tracked phone. Ans. 5-7. The Examiner, however, does not 3 Appeal2014-003224 Application 10/999 ,994 provide any explanation as to how the mobile phone can be tracked otherwise. See id. Anticipation requires that a reference disclose each and every limitation either explicitly or inherently. The Examiner admits that Lapidot is silent with respect to how the messages are tracked. The Examiner fails to show that the messages must necessarily be tracked by a means other than phone number. Thus, the Examiner's finding that phone numbers are not used is not supported by evidence. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48 depend from claim 1, and we therefore similarly do not sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 16, 27-34, 36, 38--45, 47, and 48. REVERSED 4