Ex Parte Ross et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201411959140 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014) 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. 11/959,140 12/18/2007 Steven J. Ross P001224-OST-ALS 2242 74829 7590 07/01/2014 Julia Church Dierker Dierker & Associates, P.C. 3331 W. Big Beaver Road Suite 109 Troy, MI 48084-2813 EXAMINER NGUYEN, STEVEN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2014 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 STEVEN J. ROSS, STEVEN C. TENGLER, and RICHARD A. JOHNSON ____________________ Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-19, 21-25 and 27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 The Real Party in Interest is General Motors LLC and OnStar LLC. 2 Claims 7, 20, and 26 have been cancelled, and are not on appeal. 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on April 25, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 28, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 28, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed November 23, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed December 18, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for synching online address book sources for a vehicle user. A method includes receiving, at a server, at least two different user selected destination entries from at least two different destination entry systems in selective communication with the server, and consolidating the destination entries received from the destination entry systems into a personalized online and vehicle accessible address book. Spec. ¶ [0003] and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 19, and 25 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. A method for synching online address book sources for a vehicle user, the method comprising: receiving, at a server, at least two different user selected destination entries from at least two different destination entry systems in selective communication with the server, the at least two different user selected destination entries being input by a single user; consolidating the destination entries received from the destination entry systems into a personalized online and vehicle accessible address book; determining that two or more of the received user selected destination entries correspond to a same location; evaluating the two or more received user selected destination entries for geo-coded information; and selecting, for the personalized online and vehicle accessible address book, one of the two or more received user selected destination entries including more inclusive geo-coded information. Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 3 Evidence Considered Guedalia et al., (Guedalia) US 2007/0112964 A1 May 17, 2007 Bou-Ghannam et al., US 2008/0140459 A1 Jun. 12, 2008 Ring et al., (Ring) US 7,774,368 B2 Aug. 10, 2010 Sprint and Ford Team to Deliver In-Vehicle, Integrated, Voice-Activated Wireless Products and Services, PR Newswire, (2000). Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-6, 8-14, 19, 21, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Guedalia, Sprint and Ring. Ans. 5-26. (2) Claims 15-18 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Guedalia, Sprint, Ring and Bou-Ghannam et al. Ans. 26-33. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, 19, 21, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Guedalia, Sprint and Ring. In particular, the appeal turns on whether the Examiner’s combination of Guedalia, Sprint, and Ring discloses all of the limitations recited in Appellants’ independent claims 1, 19, and 25. App. Br. 11-15, Reply Br. 5- 8. Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 4 ANALYSIS 35 U.S. C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-14, 19, 21, 25, and 27 based on Guedalia, Sprint and Ring. With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Guedalia discloses a method of receiving at least two different user selected destination entries from at least two different destination entry systems in selective communication with a server, and consolidating the destination entries received from the destination entry systems into a personalized online address book. Ans. 5 (citing Guedalia, ¶ 105 and ¶¶ 144-147). The Examiner relies on Sprint to show the use of a readily available vehicle accessible address book is well-known in the art. Ans. 6 (citing Sprint, p. 2, ¶¶ 4-7). The Examiner then finds Ring discloses the remaining steps of Appellants’ independent claim 1, including: the at least two different user selected destination entries being input by a single user, (citing Ring, col. 13, ll. 48-53), determining that two or more of the received user selected destination entries correspond to a same location, (citing Ring, col. 14, ll. 22-30) “evaluating the two or more received user selected destination entries for geo-coded information,” and “selecting, for the personalized online and vehicle accessible address book 84, one of the two or more received user selected destination entries including more inclusive geo-coded information.” (citing Ring, col. 18, ll. 9-34). Ans. 7-8. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that: The utilization of the readily available input by a single user, determining that the user entries correspond to the same location, evaluating the entries, and selecting the entry with the most information of Ring would have been obvious … in view of the teachings of Guedalia since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 5 combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions…. The combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, for example, to improve the accuracy of the contact information. Ans. 7-8. Appellants contend Ring does not disclose: (1) “the at least two different user selected destination entries being input by a single user,” (2) “determining that two or more of the received user selected destination entries correspond to a same location,” and (3) “evaluating the two or more received user selected destination entries for geo-coded information, and selecting, for the personalized online and vehicle accessible address book, one of the two or more received user selected destination entries including more inclusive geo-coded information,” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 11-15, Reply Br. 5-8 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellants acknowledge Ring teaches a method for synchronizing personal information, such as contact and address information, between multiple users and interfaces connected to a network, such as the Internet, and that two or more devices are synchronized and data is merged into a single location so that data may be accessible by multiple users. App. Br. 12 (citing Ring, col. 10, ll. 11-15, and col. 1, ll. 19-22). In other words, Ring teaches [destination] entries are entered from different entry systems. Nevertheless, Appellants argue Ring does not discloses destination entries being inputted by a single user. According to Appellants, Ring’s teaching that a member can synchronize and merge information from a variety of devices does not constitute “entries being input by a single user.” Id. (citing Ring, col. 13, ll. 48-53). Appellants also argue that “the variety of devices referred to in the Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 6 cited portion of Ring above actually refers to the devices of different users (e.g., members 104).” Id. In addition, Appellants further argue the Examiner’s reliance of the background of Ring disclosure points out the drawbacks of the conventional synchronization software and “other devices” refers to devices of multiple users. Reply Br. 5-6 (citing Ring, col. 1, ll. 50- 59; col. 2, ll. 5-21). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Ring discloses that: (1) “information (data) that is owned and controlled by a member 104 who maintains the authority on how that information is manipulated” and (2) a particular member can update its own information. See Ring, col. 11, ll. 19-24; col. 12, ll. 1-5; and col. 14, ll. 49-51. Consequently, a particular user (i.e., a single user) can input different entries from different entry systems and update or synchronize its own information. Certainly, Ring’s invention is not limited to data entries by multiple users; rather a single user can enter different entries, as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1. Appellants also contend Ring does not disclose two or more entries correspond to a same location. In particular, Appellants argue Ring discloses a comparison of data using a unique user identifier to determine if any of the data is identical, however, the comparison is “not performed on an address or on other information identifying a location, and thus the comparison is not used to determine that two or more entries correspond to a same location.” App. Br. 14. In addition, Appellants further argue Ring discloses a grouping of e-mails related work or home, etc., “neither the groupings themselves, nor the content contained in each of the groupings are user selected destination locations.” Reply Br. 7. Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 7 We disagree. The Examiner finds Ring discloses grouping of contacts relating to work or home which meets the limitation, “determining…entries correspond to a same location.” Ans. 7 (citing Ring, col. 14, ll. 22-30). According to the Examiner, work address and home address can be considered as the same location of a person. Id. 34. We agree with the Examiner. Appellants further argue Ring does not disclose evaluating entries for geo-coded information, and selecting the entry that includes more inclusive geo-coded information. According to Appellants, “geo-coded information includes a full address, partial address, place name, etc.” App. Br. 14 (citing Spec. ¶ 0059). Appellants argue Ring discloses a duplicate entry is determined from a data field or unique user identifier, and not from a same location, and the synchronization performed based on policies does not include comparing geo-coded information and selecting an entry having more inclusive geo-coded information. Id. Further, Appellants argue that the merge process as disclosed by Ring does not suggest an entry that has more inclusive geo-coded information. Reply Br. 7. Again, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, the term “geo-coded information” is simply described by Appellants’ Specification as an address or place name. Ring discloses duplicate entries are found based on respective data fields and such data fields can be, but are not limited to, email addresses, names, IM identifier or telephone number. See Ring, col. 18, ll. 9-16. Clearly, a physical address can be a part of data fields since address book may include physical address information. We also agree with the Examiner that the Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 8 merge process disclosed by Ring meets the limitation, “selecting…one of the two or more received user selected destination entries including more inclusive geo-coded information.” Ring discloses that: If there is an initial match between the identifiers, Information can be synchronized among a few different ways. For example, there may be a remote device synchronization, in which if one entry has a field that is filled and another entry does not, the information is moved into the entry not previously having it. (Ring, col. 18, ll.17-22). Based on the above disclosure, it is clear that the entry that has more information (i.e., “one entry has a field”) will be selected and moved into the entry that does not have information. For the reasons set forth above, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s position and, as such, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of Appellants’ independent claims 1, 19, and 25 over Guedalia, Sprint, and Ring. With respect to dependent claims 2-6, 8-18, 21-24, and 27, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2-6, 8-18, 21-24, and 27. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-19, 21-25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-001028 Application 11/959,140 9 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6, 8- 19, 21-25, and 27. 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) (iv). AFFIRMED dm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation