Ex Parte Lucas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

13432809 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

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.
40205/04501 1083
EXAMINER
NICHOLS, JENNIFER ELIZABETH-JO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/432,809 03/28/2012
30636 7590 12/12/2016
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
Brandon Lucas
12/12/2016 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 BRANDON LUCAS, MARTEZ MOORE,
RICK GRIMES, and ERIC WATSON
Appeal 2015-004806
Application 13/432,8091
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
Final Rejection of claims 1—16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is to Viacom
International Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004806
Application 13/432,809
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to interacting with a user using a
dynamic map. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method, executed on a computer, for facilitating an
interaction between a first user and a second user utilizing a
dynamic map displayed on a display device, the method
comprising:
receiving, by the computer, a use indication that the first
user has recently used an application on a computing device
associated with the first user, the use indication comprising a
location of the first user;
sending instructions, by the computer to the display
device, to display a graphic on the dynamic map representing the
first user, whereby a placement of the graphic on the dynamic
map is based on the location of the first user;
receiving, by the computer from the display device, a
selection indication that the graphic of the first user has been
selected by the second user; and
initiating, by the computer, the interaction between the
first and second users based on the selection indication.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8—10, 12—14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Altman et al. (US
2007/0281689 Al; Dec. 6, 2007) (“Altman”) and Barber et al. (US
8,161,396 B2; Apr. 17, 2012) (“Barber”).
Claims 3.7, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Altman, Barber, and Forrest et al. (US
6,267,379 Bl; July 31, 2001) (“Forrest”).
2
Appeal 2015-004806
Application 13/432,809
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants’ arguments but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Appellants contend the cited portions of Altman do not disclose the
limitation “a use indication that the first user has recently used an
application,” recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “use indication” is overly broad
because the “Specification provides clear disclosure that the use indication
and the term ‘recently used’ correspond to the launching of an application.”
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 114).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. We
give a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent
with the Specification. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
We find no express definition of either “use indication” or “recently used” in
the Specification, and Appellants point to none. Instead, Appellants rely on
exemplary embodiments described in the Specification. See App. Br. 5—6
(citing Spec. H 14, 15, 23). Though understanding the claim language may
be aided by explanations contained in the written description, a particular
embodiment may not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Adoption of
Appellants’ proposed interpretation of the disputed limitation would require
importing an embodiment from the written description into claim 1.
3
Appeal 2015-004806
Application 13/432,809
We agree with the Examiner that Altman’s indicating current and
updated positions teaches or suggests the recited “use indication.” See Ans.
3—5 (citing Altman || 28, 36, 45, 63, 64, 67, 71). We also agree with the
Examiner that the phrase “recently used” recited in claim 1 is broad enough
to cover current usage of an application. See Ans. 3; accord Spec. 14 (“the
computer receives a use indication that the user has recently used an
application on a computing device associated with the user, e.g., a mobile
device, with the use indication including the location of the user. Then, a
graphic is displayed on the dynamic map representing the user . . .”). Thus,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Altman and Barber teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 5, 9, and 13, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. App. Br. 7. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2—4, 6—8, 10-12, and 14—16, for which Appellants make
no additional arguments. Id. at 7—8.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
4