Ex Parte Irish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 10, 2012

10774301 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2012)

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. 10/774,301 02/06/2004 Jeremy Irish 015.0405.US.CON 5416 22895 7590 12/10/2012 CASCADIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 12360 Lake City Way NE, Ste 501 SEATTLE, WA 98125 EXAMINER MANCHO, RONNIE M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2012 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 JEREMY IRISH and ELIAS ALVORD ___________ Appeal 2010-010364 Application 10/774,301 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. PETRAVICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010364 Application 10/774,301 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Jeremy Irish et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We REVERSE. 1 THE INVENTION This invention is “a system and method for executing user-definable events triggered through geolocational data describing zones of influence.” Spec. 1:19-20. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for executing user navigational events triggered through geolocational data describing zones of influence, the system comprising; a storage medium configured to hold data in a cartridge script loadable into a wireless computing device, wherein the data comprises: zone of influence data configured to define one or more zones of influence into the cartridge script by describing a plurality of points of static geolocational data; and 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 20, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 21, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 17, 2010). Appeal 2010-010364 Application 10/774,301 3 user event data configured to define one or more user navigational events into the cartridge script and to associate each user navigational event with at least one zone of influence; and the wireless computing device configured to execute a scenario by triggering the user navigational events stored on the cartridge script through movement of the wireless computing device, the wireless computing device comprising: a locational module configured to continuously self-identify a location of the wireless computing device based on dynamic geolocational data determined in response to the movement; and a processing module configured to determine a correlation between the dynamic geolocational data and the static geolocational data for one or more of the zones of influence, and to locally trigger the user navigational event associated with the zone of influence based on the correlation. THE REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Sporgis US 6,320,495 B1 Nov. 20, 2001 The following rejection is before us for review: 1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sporgis. Appeal 2010-010364 Application 10/774,301 4 ISSUE The issue is whether Sporgis describes a wireless computing device having a processing module configured to determine a correlation between the dynamic geolocational data and the static geolocational data for one or more of the zones of influence. FINDINGS OF FACT We find that the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported by at least a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). 1. Sporgis describes that the player’s wireless communication device 10 determines and transmits the player’s location to the gamemaster computer 12. Col. 3, ll. 5-9. See also, col. 3, ll. 32- 34; col. 3, ll. 38-40; col. 5, ll. 9-11; Fig. 2, S4. 2. Sporgis does not describe that the wireless communication device 10 determines a correlation between the dynamic geolocational data and the static geolocational data for the zones of influence 3. Sporgis describes that the gamemaster computer 12 determines and transmits the player’s next clue based upon which segment of the territory the player is in. Col. 3, ll. 9-15. See also col. 5, ll. 11-23; col. 4, ll. 1-2; col. 4, ll. 14-26; Fig. 2, S5. ANALYSIS We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 12) that the Examiner erred in finding that Sporgis describes a wireless computing Appeal 2010-010364 Application 10/774,301 5 device having “a processing module configured to determine a correlation between the dynamic geolocational data and the static geolocational data for one or more of the zones of influence.” While Sporgis describes that the wireless communication device 10 determines and transmits the player’s location to the gamemaster (FF 1), Sporgis fails to describe that the wireless communication device 10 determines the claimed correlation (FF 2). As the Appellants argue (see App. Br. 12), the gamemaster computer 12, and not the wireless communication device 10, seems to determine the claimed correlation when determining which clue to transmit to the player (see FF 3). Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-5, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sporgis is reversed. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5 is reversed. REVERSED hh