Ex Parte Jung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 7, 2012

11026663 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte YOUNGHEE JUNG, PER PERSSON,
PETRI PIIPPO, and PETRI H. MAENPAA
________________

Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-35, and 37-39. Claims 9, 17, 26,
and 36 are canceled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

2
Claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sheha (US 2005/0073443 A1; published
Apr. 7, 2005; filed Feb. 17, 2004) and Samadani (US 6,906,643 B2; issued
June 14, 2005; filed Apr. 30, 2003). Ans. 5-8.1
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Samadani. Ans. 3-4.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a context diary application for
providing digital communication devices, such as mobile terminals, with a
context diary that provides a user access to context information in relation to
a period or moment in time. Spec. 1:2-5. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below with the key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A computer program product for providing access to context
information on a mobile terminal, the product comprising a computer
readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions
embodied in the medium, the computer-readable program instructions
comprising:
first instructions for generating a context view that provides for at
least two categories of context information regarding the external
environment of the mobile terminal and provides respective user-access to at
least one item of context information within each of the at least two
categories;
second instructions for generating a timeline view that is presented in
combination with the context view and provides respective user-access to

1 While the Examiner’s statement of the rejection includes canceled
claims 9, 17, and 26 (Ans. 5), we omit these canceled claims here and
present the correct claim listing for clarity.
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

3
the at least one item of context information from each of the two categories
in relation to a period of time; and
third instructions for monitoring the external environment of the
mobile terminal to determine two or more types of context data, wherein the
monitoring includes sensing two or more context data from sensors disposed
within the mobile terminal.

CONTENTIONS2
The Examiner relies on Sheha and Samadani for teaching all recited
limitations of claim 1. Ans. 5-6. The Examiner maps Samadani’s auxiliary
sensors to the disputed limitation. Ans. 6 (citing col. 10, ll. 35-40). The
Examiner explains
[a]s to the limitation regarding sensors disposed within
the mobile terminal, it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify Sheha and Samadani for disposing sensors within the
mobile terminal because it has been held that forming in one
piece an article which has [formerly] been formed in two pieces
and put together (disposed within) involves only routine skill in
the art.
Ans. 6 (citing Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893)). See
also Ans. 12-15.
The Examiner relies on Samadani for teaching all recited limitations
of claim 39. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner maps Samadani’s auxiliary sensors to
the recited two or more sensors that are configured to sense two or more

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed August 28, 2009; the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed November 16, 2009; and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed January 6, 2010.
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

4
types of context data, as recited in claim 39. Ans. 4 (citing col. 10, ll. 35-40;
col. 12, ll. 30-40). See also Ans. 8-12.
Appellants argue that Sheha and Samadani do not teach sensing two
or more context data from sensors disposed within the mobile terminal, as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-12. Appellants further argue that Samadani
does not teach the processing unit is also configured to be co-located and to
move in concert with and to be in communication with two or more sensors
that are configured to sense two or more types of context data, as recited in
claim 39. App. Br. 6-9. See also Reply Br. 2-6.

ISSUES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that
Sheha and Samadani collectively teach sensing two or more context data
from sensors disposed within the mobile terminal, as recited in claim 1?
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), has the Examiner erred by finding that
Samadani teaches the processing unit is also configured to be co-located and
to move in concert with and to be in communication with two or more
sensors that are configured to sense two or more types of context data, as
recited in claim 39?

ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-
35, 37, AND 38 OVER SHEHA AND SAMADANI
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 1, that
Sheha and Samadani collectively teach all claim limitations. Ans. 5-6, 12-
15. Samadani (col. 10, ll. 35-40) states:
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

5
Each GeoTemporalAnchor 208 may also contain fields storing
various types of auxiliary sensor data such as Elevation 216,
Orientation 218, Tilt 220, and Temperature 222 that are
sampled and recorded in an essentially continuous manner
similar to Time 210 and Location 214 at the time of recording
the PEM [(path-enhanced multimedia)].
Appellants have not persuaded us that Samadani’s auxiliary sensor
data would not teach two or more context data from sensors disposed within
the mobile terminal, as recited in claim 1. As the Examiner explains,
Samadani teaches sensors to monitor and record external environment. Ans.
6 (citing col. 10, ll. 35-40).
Appellants argue that the GeoTemporalAnchor of Samadani is a data
structure, and merely storing data from sensors does not constitute
monitoring the external environment. App Br. 10. Appellants further argue
that it is not obvious to take remote sensors and place them within a mobile
terminal, characterize the Examiner’s position as interpreting the databases
and services of Samadani as constituting the recited sensors, and further
argue that any teaching of sensors derived from Samadani would not have
suggested sensors disposed within the terminal. App. Br. 11-12. See also
Reply Br. 4-6. The Examiner explains that the storage in Samadani is used
to store/record sampled data obtained from auxiliary sensors of the PEM
device during a trip, which would inherently comprise sensors monitoring
external environment such as Elevation, Orientation, Tilt angle,
Temperature, and Location of the PEM device. Ans. 13. The Examiner
notes that the auxiliary sensors are mapped to the recited sensors, and
reasonably explains why it would have been obvious to dispose the sensors
within the mobile terminal. Ans. 13-15.
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

6
Appellants have not provided any persuasive rebuttal or persuasive
argument as to why the Examiner’s explanation is insufficient. Weighing
Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-
25, 27-35, 37, and 38, which are not argued separately.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIM 39 OVER SAMADANI
We agree with the Examiner’s position, with regard to claim 39, that
Samadani describes all claim limitations. Ans. 3-4, 8-12.
Samadani (col. 10, ll. 35-40) describes a GeoTemporalAnchor storing
auxiliary sensor data, as previously discussed. Samadani (col. 12, ll. 30-32)
further states “ 262: associates MediaFiles 206 or
other optional information (such as Temperature) directly with the Map
252.” Samadani elaborates regarding the auxiliary sensor data by (col. 9, ll.
18-24) explaining that the data may also include elevation, orientation
information for the recording device, and other types of sensor data.
Appellants have not persuaded us that Samadani does not describe the
processing unit is also configured to be co-located and to move in concert
with and to be in communication with two or more sensors that are
configured to sense two or more types of context data, as recited in claim 39.
As the Examiner explains, Samadani describes sensors to monitor and record
external environment, and the sensors are located with the PEM device,
moving in concert with the PEM device. Ans. 4 (citing col. 10, ll. 35-40;
col. 12, ll. 30-40). See also Samadani, col. 9, ll. 18-24.
Appeal 2010-004693
Application 11/026,663

7
Appellants argue that the databases and services of Samadani are not
sensors and, at best, auxiliary sensor data is sensed by appropriate sensors
but there is still no indication that any such sensors are configured as recited
in claim 39. App. Br. 7-9. See also Reply Br. 2-4. In response, the
Examiner explains that the auxiliary sensor data such as Elevation,
Orientation, Tilt, and Temperature are sampled and recorded in an
essentially continuous manner similar to Time and Location at the time of
recording the PEM, and that the sensors are located at the PEM device. Ans.
9-10.
Appellants have not provided any persuasive rebuttal or persuasive
argument as to why the Examiner’s explanation is insufficient. Weighing
Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s findings, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 39. We therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 39.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-25, 27-35,
and 37-39 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc