Ex Parte Ross et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

11959140 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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