Ex Parte Graham

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

10256683 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/256,683 09/27/2002 Tyrol R. Graham 120083-129571 4792
60172 7590 09/24/2012
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON &WYATT, P.C.
1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3400
SEATTLE, WA 98101-4010
EXAMINER
RAMPURIA, SHARAD K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TYROL R. GRAHAM
____________

Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and BRIAN J.
McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-30 and 41-46, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 31-40
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sep. 8, 2009), the Answer (mailed Nov.
20, 2009), and the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 20, 2010). We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the displaying of the locations of
subscribers of a wireless communication system on mobile stations of fellow
subscribers. See generally Spec. 2:11-15.

Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:

1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing environment, from a wireless mobile
station
external to the computing environment, a request for presence
and locations of wireless communication subscribers present
within a first geographic area, wherein the first geographic area
is selected, by a user of the wireless mobile station, from among
a plurality of geographic areas independently of the user's
geographical position, said request specifying the location of
the first geographic area and being agnostic as to identities of
Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

3
the wireless communication subscribers present in the first
geographic area;
in response, the computing environment dynamically generating
a displayable image that conveys presence and locations of
wireless communication subscribers for a second geographic
area substantially comprising the first geographic area;
and
transmitting, by the computing environment, the dynamically
generated displayable image to the external wireless mobile
station for display on the external wireless mobile station.

The Examiner’s Rejections

The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Singer US 5,485,163 Jan. 16, 1996
Smith US 6,084,951 July 4, 2000
Hollenberg US 6,091,956 July18, 2000
Kepler US 6,748,225 B1 June 8, 2004
(filed Feb. 29, 2000)
Hashimoto GB 2,322,248 A Aug. 19, 1998

Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13, 14, 17-22, 25, 28-30, and 41-44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of
Hollenberg.
Claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Hollenberg and Singer.
Claims 11, 12, 23, 24, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Hollenberg and
Kepler.
Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Hollenberg and Smith.

Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13, 14, 17-22, 25, 28-30, and 41-44
With respect to the obviousness rejection of representative
independent claim 1, Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rationale
for combining Hashimoto and Hollenberg, but contends that the applied
references, taken individually or collectively, do not teach all of the claimed
elements.1 Appellant’s arguments initially focus on the embodiment
illustrated in Hashimoto’s Figure 6 and described on pages 24-33. (App. Br.
8-11). In this embodiment, a holder of a mobile device can track through a
central system the position, relative to the position of the holder, of a known
and identified third party subscriber having a similar mobile device.
According to Appellant, therefore, Hashimoto does not disclose a request for
locations of unidentified wireless subscribers in a user selected geographic
area which is independent of the user’s geographical location as claimed.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. While the Examiner indeed
referenced Hashimoto’s Figure 6 embodiment in the statement of the
rejection (Ans. 4), the Examiner also directed attention to Hashimoto’s
Figures 8A-8B embodiment and has provided a detailed analysis of such
embodiment at pages 16 and 17 of the Answer. As explained by the
Examiner, Hashimoto’s discussion at pages 33-38 of the Figures 8A-8B
embodiment describes the selection by the user of a mobile terminal of a
geographic area to be supervised which is independent of the location of the

1 Appellants argue rejected claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13, 14, 17-22, 25, 28-30, and
41-44 together as a group, making particular reference only to language
appearing in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

5
mobile terminal user. The location and movement of wireless subscribers
within the specified geographic area are tracked and an alarm is activated if
movement (or lack thereof) occurs within a predetermined time period.
Appellant’s initial argument (App. Br. 12) challenging the Examiner’s
interpretation of Hashimoto’s Figures 8A-8B embodiment, i.e., only one
subscriber is being tracked in contrast to the claimed plural subscribers, is
not persuasive. We find that, while Hashimoto’s initial description of the
Figures 8A-8B embodiment explicitly mentions tracking only a single
subscriber, Hashimoto’s referenced skiing area example (page 37) would
have suggested to the skilled artisan that plural subscribers are being tracked
within a defined geographic area. We also note that Hollenberg, applied in
combination with Hashimoto, discloses the location tracking of plural
subscribers within a defined geographic area (Hollenberg, Fig. 11; col. 21, ll.
41-47 and col. 22, ll. 56-60).
Appellant’s further contention (App. Br. 12) that Hashimoto has no
teaching or suggestion that the supervised party in the Figures 8A-8B
embodiment is unknown to the user supervisor is not persuasive.
Hashimoto’s description of the Figures 8A-8B embodiment does not
explicitly indicate whether the supervised party is known or unknown to the
user supervisor. It is noteworthy, however, that, in discussing the Figure 6
embodiment, Hashimoto discloses the need for the user to identify the party
whose location is being tracked, but no such identification requirement
appears in the description of the Figures 8A-8B embodiment. Further, we
find that the description of subscriber location look-ahead feature in the
applied Hollenberg reference would suggest to the skilled artisan that the
Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

6
subscribers whose locations are displayed to the user are not known to the
user (Fig. 11).
We further find unpersuasive Appellant’s contention (Reply Br. 2-3)
that, in contrast to the claimed invention, the setting of a site to be
supervised in Hashimoto’s Figures 8A-8B embodiment is separate from any
user request for a subscriber’s location. In our view, a skilled artisan would
recognize from Hashimoto’s disclosure (pages 33-38) that the setting of a
site to be supervised is a step which sets in motion the location request
procedure, not a separate unrelated step as implied by Appellant’s
arguments.
Lastly, while Appellant contends (App. Br. 12) that there is no
teaching or suggestion that the locations of supervised parties in
Hashimoto’s Figures 8A-8B embodiment are displayed to the user
supervisor, we note that, in the look-ahead feature disclosed by Hollenberg
(Fig. 11), the locations of plural subscribers within a defined geographic area
are displayed to the user.
We also find unpersuasive Appellant’s arguments directed to the
alleged deficiencies of Hollenberg. Appellant contends that, while
Hollenberg discloses the display to a user of locations of places and other
subscribers, such a display is dependent upon the user’s current geographical
position which is in direct contrast to the claimed invention (App. Br. 12-
13). As previously discussed, however, it is Hashimoto, not Hollenberg, that
is relied upon for teaching providing locations of other subscribers in a
defined geographic area independent of the user’s position.
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on the collective teachings of Hashimoto and Hollenberg, of
Appeal 2010-004473
Application 10/256,683

7
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2, 5-10, 13, 14, 17-22,
25, 28-30, and 41-44, not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 45, and 46
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, based on
separate combinations of Hashimoto and Hollenberg with Singer, Kepler,
and Smith of dependent claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 23, 24, 26, 27, 45, and
46. Appellant has not argued the rejected claims with any particularity but,
instead, has relied upon arguments asserted against the rejection of
representative independent claim 1, which arguments we have found
unpersuasive as discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-30 and 41-46 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-30 and 41-46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

gvw