Ex Parte Jennings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 2016

13613666 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/613,666 09/13/2012 Kenneth Jennings 119000 7590 06/13/2016 Concert Technology Corporation 5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303 SUITE 160 Raleigh, NC 27607 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. CT-CRD-012C/US (P480C) EXAMINER RECEK, JASON D 9743 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/13/2016 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 KENNETH JENNINGS, CHRISTOPHER M. AMIDON, and RA VI REDDY KATPELL Y Appeal2014-008453 Application 13/613,666 Technology Center 2400 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, and 10-20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding Sano (US 2009/0115617 Al; May 7, 2009) discloses iteratively identifYing crowds for a series of two or more outwardly 1 Claims 3-9 are allowed. Adv. Act. 1. Appeal2014-008453 Application 13/613,666 radiating, differently sized, concentric geographic regions ("iteratively identifying" limitation), as set forth in independent claim 1 and commensurately set forth in independent claims 19 and 20. The Examiner finds Sano discloses identifying crowds for two or more concentric regions because Sano describes identifying crowds for multiple positions ("two or more" regions) that are centered at a user's position (concentric). Final Act. 4--5 (citing Sano Fig. 23; i-fi-f 12-13, 34, 71, 355-357); see also Ans. 6-7. The Examiner finds Sano discloses the regions can be differently sized because the area range can be set. Final Act. 5 (citing Sano i1355). The Examiner also finds Sano describes updating a search and therefore discloses a series of two or more since the crowd identification procedure is performed more than once. Ans. 7 (citing Sano Fig. 19, i-fi-f 336-339). The cited sections of Sano describe a user may specify an area range for a iocation where peopie are gathering reiative to the user's current position (e.g., within a radius of x km, within the same city). Crowd information is generated for different positions 34A, 34B within the area range. Sano Fig. 23; i-fi-134, 356. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 3) that the different positions 34A, 34B described in Sano do not share the same center and are thus not concentric. To the extent the Examiner may be relying on multiple searches to inherently disclose the claimed series of two or more differently sized, concentric regions, the cited section of Sano merely describe updating the search if conditions have changed (Sano Fig. 19, i-fi-1337-339) and is not sufficient to establish Sano necessarily discloses the second search is for a differently sized region concentric with the first search. See In re Oelrich, 666 F .2d 578, 581 (CCP A 1981) ("Inherency, 2 Appeal2014-008453 Application 13/613,666 however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient."). Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established that Sano discloses the "iteratively identifying" limitation. The Examiner does not rely on the additional reference of record, Stewart (US 2011/0136506 Al; June 9, 2011), teaches or suggest this limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1, 19, and 20, and dependent claims 2 and 10-18. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 10-20. REVERSED 3