Ex Parte Piett et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 201713441148 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/441,148 04/06/2012 William Todd Piett 30026-019001 3861 69713 7590 03/22/2017 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP 321 Summer St. Boston, MA 02210 EXAMINER EL-ZOOBI, MARIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2656 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2017 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): INFO @ORP ATENT.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM TODD PIETT and MATTHEW A. SERRA Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,1481 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, 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’s Final Rejection of claims 1—15. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on March 8, 2017. We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rave Wireless, Incorporated. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ application relates to emergency response data management. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method for providing emergency response information associated with an individual emergency call source from a plurality of emergency call sources, said method comprising: accepting first emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source from a first information source other than an individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source; validating the first emergency response information; and maintaining the validated first response information for enabling provision thereof in association with an emergency call from the individual emergency call source. REJECTIONS Claims 1—10 and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Agarwal et al. (US 2003/0012344 Al; published Jan. 16, 2003) (“Agarwal”). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Agarwal and Oxley (US 2003/0091159 Al; published May 15, 2003). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this 2 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Rejection of Claims 1—3, 5—7, 10, and 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Appellants first contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Agarwal because the cited portions of Agarwal do not disclose the “validating” step of claim 1. App. Br. 5. Appellants argue that “the majority of the paragraphs do not even mention the [Emergency System Response File (“ESRF”)]” and those that do “only describe uploading it, allowing access to it, or encrypting it.” Id. at 12. Appellants further argue that the caller ID disclosed in paragraph 53 of Agarwal “simply tells you the telephone number of the calling telephone. It has nothing to do with validating the ESRF.” Id. at 12. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The Examiner in the Answer explained that paragraphs 53—55 of Agarwal disclose that the phone number used to place the emergency call is automatically recognized at the emergency response center using the caller ID function and information on an associated web site can be automatically displayed there. Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner relies on the information on a web site associated with a URL as the recited “first emergency response Information,” not the ESRF disclosed in Agarwal, as Appellants contend. The Examiner also explained that “the Emergency Utility may initiate a chat (audio, text, video, multi-media) session with the 911 emergency response center to communicate the nature of the emergency and seek assistance (so the provided information can be validated since a multimedia 3 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 session is opened with the caller).” Id. Thus, the Examiner interprets the disputed limitation “validating the first emergency response information” as broad enough to encompass automatically recognizing the phone number used to place the emergency call using a caller ID function, discussed above, and automatically displaying associated information from a web site based thereon or opening a multimedia session with the caller. Ans. 7. Appellants have not persuasively shown that the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. Rather, Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that “there is no actual disclosure of validating any information” in the cited paragraphs. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner, however, does not contend, nor is the Examiner required to demonstrate, that the identical text of rejected claim 1 appears in the cited references. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants further argue that, in the claimed invention, “the caller and the person who provided the information are different. Thus, the caller cannot validate the information for the simple reason that he does not know what it is.” Reply Br. 2. The plain language of claim 1, however, does not require the caller to validate the first emergency response information. See App. Br. 32. Moreover, claim 1 does not require that a person or individual provide the first emergency response information. Rather, the claim requires “a first information source other than an individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source.” Id. The examples of first information sources set forth in Appellants’ Specification include an “automated information source” and describe that “information may be provided in a machine-to-machine interaction.” See Spec, 15—17. 4 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Agarwal discloses the disputed “validating” step. Appellants next contend the cited portions of Agarwal do not disclose the “accepting” step recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13—14. Appellants argue that: when one attempts to read this limitation on Agarwal, the result is: accepting first emergency response information [ESRF] associated with the individual emergency call source [computing device executing the [Emergency Utility (“EU”)] from a first information source [owner of the computing device] other than an individual [owner of the computing device] directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source [computing device executing the EU], Id. at 14—15 (emphasis omitted). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not fully address the Examiner’s rejection. As discussed above, the Examiner found that “the web site of the URL that corresponds to the phone number of the incoming call” disclosed in paragraph 52 of Agarwal meets the limitation “first information source other than an individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source.” Ans. 7. Appellants argue in the Reply Brief that “[a] URL is obviously not a ‘source’ of information.” Reply Br. 5. Appellants further argue that, based on a diagram that does not appear in the Agarwal reference, the HTML file associated with the URL 5 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 disclosed in Agrawal is from the same source as another file in the Agarwal system. Id. at 5—8. Appellants, however, do not persuasively show error in the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation as broad enough to encompass accepting emergency response information from the web site of a URL that corresponds to a caller’s phone number, as is disclosed in paragraph 52 of Agarwal. In particular, Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation or the term “source” is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. As discussed above with regard to the “validating” step, we note that the Specification describes that “[t]he first information source comprises an automated information source” and that “information may be provided in a machine-to-machine interaction.” Spec. 117. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed limitation is sufficiently broad to encompass accepting emergency response information from the web site of the URL that corresponds to the phone number of the incoming call, as is disclosed in paragraph 52 of Agarwal. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that the cited prior art fails to teach “maintaining the validated response information,” as claim 1 requires. See Reply Br. 9. Appellants, however, have waived this argument because they presented it for the first time in the Reply Brief, without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010 (informative opinion) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to 6 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not”). Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief were limited to the “validating” and “accepting” steps of claim 1 (see App. Br. 5—15), and the Examiner did not have an opportunity to respond to new arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief regarding the “maintaining” step. We note, however, that Appellants’ new arguments are based on a narrower interpretation of the “maintaining” step than that applied by the Examiner. Specifically, Appellants’ arguments require that the “maintaining” step recited in claim 1 is performed by “someone.” See Reply Br. 9. The plain language of claim 1, however, requires only “maintaining the validated first response information for enabling provision thereof in association with an emergency call from the individual emergency call source,” and does not require an individual or person to perform the step. See App. Br. 32. Appellants point to no explicit or implicit definition of “maintaining” in the Specification that would require such a narrow interpretation. Additionally, as discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Agarwal discloses the recited “validating” step recited in claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ new argument that, because the first response information is not validated in Agarwal, the Examiner erred in finding that Agarwal discloses “maintaining the validated first response information.” Appellants also present for the first time in the Reply Brief an argument that claim 1 “recites events that occur long before any emergency occurs.” Reply Br. 10. Appellants argue that “[t]he claim recites steps that occur when someone is first registering with a service provider. No emergency is in progress.” Id. Again, Appellants have waived this 7 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 argument because they presented it for the first time in the Reply Brief, without a showing of good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); accord Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1473—74. We note, however, that no such temporal limitation appears in the plain language of claim 1, and Appellants provide no persuasive reasoning that would lead us to interpret the claim to require such a limitation. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Agarwal. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 15 and dependent claims 2, 3, 5—7, 10, and 12—14, for which Appellants made no additional arguments. See App. Br. 3—15. Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because Agarwal fails to disclose “maintaining emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source from a plurality of information sources,” as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 15. Appellants argue that none of the paragraphs in Agarwal cited by the Examiner mentions the ESRF or maintaining the ESRF. See App. Br. 16—22. Appellants further argue “the information in the ESRF is not ‘from a plurality of information sources’” as claim 9 requires because, in Agarwal, “all the information comes from one source: the owner of the device.” Id. at 15—16. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. First, Appellants present no definition of “maintaining” and point to none in the Specification. The plain and ordinary meaning of “maintain” includes “to preserve or retain.” See The American Heritage Dictionary 505 (5th ed. 8 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 2012). Paragraph 18 of Agrawal, relied on by the Examiner, discloses that “the Emergency Utility contacts the local emergency response center, alerts it to the existence of an emergency, and automatically uploads the emergency management system response file to the emergency response center’s computer system.” See Final Act. 7; Agarwal 118. In the two preceding paragraphs, Agarwal discloses the information contained in the emergency response file. Agarwal H 16—17. Moreover, Agarwal discloses that the web site of the URL that corresponds to the phone number of the incoming call, disclosed in paragraph 52 of Agarwal, can be automatically displayed at the emergency response center. Agarwal H 52—53. Thus, because Agrawal teaches uploading and displaying emergency response information, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the emergency response information in Agarwal is at least retained for or during those activities. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “maintaining,” Agarwal discloses “maintaining emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source,” as recited in claim 9. Second, with regard to Appellants’ argument that, in Agarwal, “all the information comes from one source: the owner of the device,” for reasons similar to those discussed above with regard to the “validating” and “accepting” steps recited in claim 1, we are not persuaded that the limitation “information source” is limited to an individual or person. The plain language of claim 9 does not require that a person or individual be the source of the emergency response information. App. Br. 33. The Examiner interpreted “information sources” broadly, reasonably, and in a manner consistent with the Specification in finding that the phrase is broad enough 9 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 to encompass the web site associated with a URL, as disclosed in paragraph 52 of Agrawal (Ans. 4, 7), as discussed above. As further explained in the Answer, the Examiner also found the disputed limitation broad enough to encompass information from governmental and non-governmental organizations that communicate electronically with the Emergency Utility when services from those organizations are required. Ans. 8 (citing Agarwal 126). Appellants’ argument in the Reply Brief that in paragraph 26, “[tjhere is no disclosure of the fact that providing ‘medical and security related services (emergency or otherwise) on a registration and/or nonregistration basis’ is the same as or equivalent to providing ‘emergency response information’ that could then be maintained” (Reply Br. 13) is not persuasive because the Examiner does not point to “medical and security related services (emergency or otherwise) on a registration and/or nonregistration basis” as meeting the “emergency response information” recited in claim 9. See Ans. 8. Rather, the Examiner points to information needed to assist in the emergency. See id. Appellants next contend that, for the same reasons discussed above with regard to the “maintaining” step, none of the cited paragraphs of Agarwal discloses the limitation “prior to an emergency call from the individual emergency call source, accepting emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source from one or more sources or the plurality of information sources other than an individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source.” App. Br. 22. Appellants make no additional arguments specific to the “accepting” step recited in claim 9 and do not address that limitation in the Reply Brief. Thus, for the reasons discussed above with regard to the 10 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 “maintaining” step, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Agarwal does not disclose the recited “accepting” step. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as anticipated by Agarwal. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 9. Rejection of Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the first information source comprises an entity associated with the individual emergency call source.” App. Br. 32. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 as anticipated by Agarwal because “the various entities in [Agarwal paragraph] 26 are not sources of information that would ultimately be in the ESRF.” Id. at 23 (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. In the Answer, the Examiner explained that paragraph 52 of Agarwal discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 8. Specifically, the Examiner pointed to Agrawal’s disclosure of a web site accessed by a URL associated with the phone number that placed the emergency call as the recited “first information source.” See id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue in a conclusory manner that, in Agarwal, “[t]he source of the emergency call in the cited art is the device that is running the EU. The URL is not associated with this device. The URL is associated with whatever web site to which it points.” Reply Br. 12. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the rejection actually made by the Examiner. Rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites: 11 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 further comprising accepting second emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source from the individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source, and maintaining the second emergency response information for providing in conjunction with the first emergency response information in association with an emergency call from the individual emergency call source. App. Br. 32—33. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 as anticipated by Agarwal because the entities disclosed in paragraph 26 of Agarwal provide medical services, not information. Id. at 25. Appellants also argue that paragraphs 27, 32, 52, 53, 64, and 72 of Agarwal do not disclose the limitation recited in claim 9. Id. Appellants further argue it is “unclear what could possibly be regarded as ‘second emergency response information associated with the individual emergency call source, ’ or what could be an ‘individual directly corresponding to the individual emergency call source’ in these paragraphs.” Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. In the Answer, the Examiner explained that Agarwal discloses communications with the 911 emergency response center and with other persons, such as friends and lawyers. Ans. 9 (citing Agarwal 121). The Examiner further explained that Agarwal discloses that “information is being provided to the emergency personnel to further assist in the situation.” Id. (citing Agarwal 125). Paragraph 25 of Agarwal, relied on by the Examiner, discloses “communication from emergency response vehicles back to the emergency response center to provide updates concerning ongoing or completed emergency responses, or to request additional information necessary for effective emergency response.” Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellants merely argue that [tjhere is no disclosure of the fact that a chat session with a friend 12 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 or a lawyer would necessarily involve ‘accepting second emergency response information.Reply Br. 12. Appellants, however, do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 25 discloses an exchange of information with emergency personnel. See id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 21 and 25 disclose the limitation recited in claim 8. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Agrawal’s disclosure of the communication and retention of information from emergency personnel meets the disputed limitation of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 8. Rejection of Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner found that Agarwal teaches or suggests all of the recited limitations, except “providing the maintained emergency response information comprises providing references to the parts of the information,” for which the Examiner relied on Oxley. Final Act. 9 (citing Agarwal 70-73, Oxley ]Hf 34, 55). Appellants contend the cited portions of Oxley do not disclose the “providing” step recited in claim 11. App. Br. 26—29. Appellants argue that “[i]t is unclear how just naming the parts of a wireless communication device describes” the disputed limitation. Id. at 27 (citing Oxley 1 55). Appellants further argue that paragraph 34 of Oxley “appears to have nothing to do with ‘providing references to the parts of the information [associated with the individual emergency call source][’]” because “nobody is making a call. Subscribers 44 are just providing information to entity 40, which adds the information to a database 36.” Id. at 29. Appellants also 13 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 argue that the index taught in paragraph 34 of Oxley refers to the entirety of the information associated with a subscriber 44 and not “parts of the information” associated with an individual emergency call source, as claim 11 requires. Id. Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In the Answer, the Examiner explained that Agarwal teaches that a computing device can communicate different information to different third parties for use in emergency situations and, thus, teaches that emergency information is stored in more than one system. Ans. 10 (citing Agarwal 173). The Examiner further explained that Agarwal teaches that part of the emergency information associated with an individual emergency call source can be stored on a web site accessible by a URL based a phone number. Id. (citing Agarwal 52—54). The Examiner relied on Figure 1 and paragraphs 34 and 55 of Oxley as teaching that a database containing emergency information can be indexed by a code unique to each subscriber. Ans. 10. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to index each of the multiple databases or systems of Agarwal by a code unique to each subscriber and to access information based on those indexed, as taught by 14 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 Oxley. Id. at 10—11; see also Final Act. 9. Thus, the Examiner relies on the combination of Agarwal and Oxley as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation in claim 11. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that in Agarwal, “there would be a second copy of the information” at the third party taught in paragraph 73, which is not the same as “maintaining separate parts in different locations,” as claim 11 requires. Reply Br. 14. Appellants also argue that in Agarwal paragraphs 52—54, “there are multiple pointers to the same information,” which also does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Id. at 15. Appellants further argue that Oxley Figure 1 and paragraph 34 teach “multiple databases stored at one single location” (emphasis omitted), which is not the same as multiple parts of a database stored at multiple locations. Id. We disagree with Appellants that claim 11 requires maintaining separate parts of information at different locations. The plain language of the claim requires “maintaining parts of the emergency response information in separated systems,” with no requirement that the parts be different from each other or that the systems be located in different locations. See App. Br. 33. Appellants point to no definition of the term “parts” in the Specification, and we find none. The plain and ordinary meaning of “parts” includes “portions of a whole.” See The American Heritage Dictionary 609 (5th ed. 2012). Paragraph 73 of Agarwal, cited by the Examiner, teaches an exchange of medical information between a user’s computing device and a cruise operator’s system, and also teaches the exchange of critical phone numbers between the computing system of an amusement park and the user’s computing system. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation 15 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 of the claim, we agree with the Examiner that Agarwal teaches that parts of emergency information are maintained in separate systems, as claim 11 requires. See Ans. 10. Appellants also contend “[t]he examiner has made no attempt at some ‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion’ that it would have been so obvious to modify Agarwal as disclosed by Oxley in order to simplify access to data and to reduce unnecessary access.” App. Br. 30 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue that the reason to combine the references proffered by the Examiner “lacks technical merit” because, in Oxley, the subscriber sends an identifying message in a variety of formats, which would not save time “if a receiver understands one format.” Id. We find neither argument persuasive. We find the Examiner has provided persuasive articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified the separate systems taught in Agarwal with the indexing scheme taught in Oxley—“to simplify the access to the required information which will save time and avoid obtaining information that may not be needed.” See Final Act. 9. In addition, Appellants have not persuaded us how Oxley’s teaching of sending an identifying message in a variety of formats means the Examiner’s proposed rationale for combining the references lacks technical merit. In particular, Appellants have not sufficiently or persuasively explained the relationship between sending an identifying message in a variety of formats and the combination proposed by the Examiner. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of Agarwal and Oxley teach or suggest 16 Appeal 2014-006634 Application 13/441,148 the limitations of claim 11. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 11. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1—15. 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 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation