Ex Parte Lehtiniemi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 28, 2016

13547705 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/547,705 07 /12/2012 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 11/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Arto Juhani Lehtiniemi 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. P6446USOO 1885 EXAMINER SAMWEL, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AR TO JUHANI LEHTINIEMI, JURA HENRIK ARRASVUORI, and ANTTI JOHANNES ERONEN Appeal 2015-006421 1 Application 13/547, 705 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19, and 20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 21--48 have been canceled. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affrrm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Corp. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-006421 Application 13/547, 705 Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and apparatus for sharing and recommending content associated with user information. Spec. ,-r 22. In particular, upon receiving from the user equipment ( 101) an input selecting a media item and an associated a location thereof, a link depicting an association between the user and the location is retrieved from a database (117, 119, 121) to supplement the selected media item information. Id. ,-r,-r 24--26, Fig. 1. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of or processing one or more of(l) data(2) information and (3) at least one signai the ( 1) data, a (2) information, and (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: at least one determination of an input from at least one user for selecting at least one object depicted in at least one media item; at least one determination of at least one location associated with the at least one object; and an association of the at least one user with the at least one location, wherein the association is a link between the at least one user and the at least one location, and wherein information regarding the link between the at least one user and the at least one location is stored in one or more databases. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1--4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gelfand et al. (US 2008/026887 6 Al, published Oct. 30, 2008). 2 Appeal 2015-006421 Application 13/547, 705 Ciaims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gelfand and Gallagher et al. (US 8,150,098 B2 issued Apr. 3, 2012). ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 3-10, and the Reply Brief, pages 2---6. 2 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the fmdings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Ans. 2--4, Fin. Act. 2-13. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and fmdings for emphasis as follows. Anticipation Rejection Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue that Gelfand does not describe a link associating a user and a location stored in a database. App. Br. 5, Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants argue although Gelfand discloses retrieving from a user profile, stored in a database, point of interest (PO Is) similar to a POI identified by the user's mobile device, Gelfand does not describe how the similar POis are stored in the user 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 2, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed June 16, 2015) and the Answer (mailed May 8, 2015) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F .R. Â§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv) (2012). 3 Appeal 2015-006421 Application 13/547, 705 proftle, nor does it describe that the retrieved PO Is are somehow linked to the user. App. Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Gelfand ,-r 51). Likewise, Appellants argue that Gelfand's disclosure of video clips or images corresponding to the user profile stored in a mobile terminal are directed to a link between a captured object and the positional information thereof, as opposed to a link between the user and an identified location. Id. at 8 (citing Gelfand ,-r 61 ). These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the recitation of an association between the location and the user does not require the presence of the user at the location. Further, we also note that the disputed limitation is not concerned with how location information is stored in the database. Rather, it merely requires that the user be associated or related to the location stored in a database. Consequently, because Gelfand's disclosure of a link associating retrieved PO Is in images or video clips stored in the user's profile involves the retrieval oflocation information that is related to the user, we agree with the Examiner that the retrieved POis from the user's profile describe retrieving from a database location information associated with the user. Ans. 2-3 (citing Gelfand ,-r,-r 51, 61 ). Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claim 2, Appellants argue Gelfand does not describe a user giving permission to search one or more media collections associated with the user prior to determining the media items. App. Br. 8-9 Reply Br. 4--5. This argument is notpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would readily appreciate that in order to locate in a user device POis similar to an identified location, the user must 4 Appeal 2015-006421 Application 13/547, 705 have assented thereto beforehand prior to allowing such a search to be performed. Ans. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 2. Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19 and 20, because Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and2 above, claims 3, 4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19 and20, fall therewith. See 37 C.F .R. Â§ 41.37( c )(1 )(iv). Obviousness Rejection Because Appellants have not provided separate patentability arguments for the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16 and 18 over the combination of Gelfand and Gallagher, those arguments are waived. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of the cited claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affmn the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 7, 9-14, 17, 19, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5