Ex Parte Scott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2012

11426459 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/426,459 06/26/2006 David Scott BLL0452USC 1949 36192 7590 11/27/2012 AT&T Legal Department - CC Attn: Patent Docketing Room 2A-207 One AT&T Way Bedminster, NJ 07921 EXAMINER VU, VIET DUY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2012 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 DAVID SCOTT and XIAOFENG GAO ________________ Appeal 2010-003100 Application 11/426,459 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003100 Application 11/426,459 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Bhatt (US 2003/0187949 A1).1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to a telecommunication system and method for a caller and a callee to gather geographical information related to each other’s geographical location. For example, once a callee’s device knows the IP address of the caller’s device, the callee’s device can obtain a geographical location associated with the Internet address of the caller’s device. The geographical location can then be used to retrieve geographical location information such as local time, weather, and news associated with the caller’s geographical location. See generally Abstract; Spec. 1:12-14; 16:14-23. Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A data-gathering system, comprising: an Internet address location database having a plurality of Internet addresses and a plurality of geographical location identification information, wherein each of the plurality of lnternet addresses correlates to at least a portion of the geographical location identification information; an information server having geographical location description information associated with the geographical location identification information; and a first Internet device configured to receive an invite to an Internet session from a second Internet device, wherein the invite 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Supplemental Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2009; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 9, 2009. Appeal 2010-003100 Application 11/426,459 3 comprises an Internet address of the second Internet device, wherein the first Internet device is further configured to retrieve a geographical location identification information from the Internet address location database using the Internet address of the second Internet device, wherein the retrieved geographical location correlates to the Internet address of the second Internet device, and wherein the first Internet device is further configured to collect geographical location description information related to the geographical location identification information of the second Internet device from the information server. Although the Examiner finds that Bhatt teaches most of the limitations of representative claim 1 (Ans. 3, 4), the Examiner also finds that Bhatt does not explicitly teach retrieving geographical location identification information associated with the user IP address. Ans. 4:14-16; 7:6-8. But the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to retrieve appropriate geographical location identification information associated with the user IP address where Bhatt’s database is used to maintain information of multiple network access servers. Ans. 4:18-5:1; 7:10-17. Appellants assert that “Bhatt does not teach retrieving ‘geographical location identification information from the Internet address location database using the Internet address of the second Internet device.” Br. 4:27- 29. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by concluding that it would have been obvious to retrieve geographical location identification information from an Internet address location database using the Internet address of a second Internet device? Appeal 2010-003100 Application 11/426,459 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1-15 We begin by noting that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the claim language. For claim 1, Appellants contend that Bhatt does not teach “retrieving ‘geographical location identification information . . . using the Internet address of’” a second Internet device. Br. 4:27-29 (emphasis added). Claim 1, however, is significantly different. Claim 1 instead recites a first Internet device is “configured to retrieve” geographical location identification information. (Emphasis added.). For claims 5 and 10, Appellants contend that “Bhatt does not teach retrieving ‘retrieve geographical location identification information.” Br. 5:29-30; 6:30-7:1 (emphasis added). Claim 5, however, recites “configured to retrieve geographical location identification information” and claim 10 recites “retrieving geographical location identification information.” (Emphasis added.). Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the language of claims 1, 5, or 10, respectively. We find no error in the Examiner’s application of Bhatt to claims 1, 5, and 10. Ans. 3-7. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claims 1, 5, and 10; and (2) claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-15 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-15. Appeal 2010-003100 Application 11/426,459 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-15 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED gvw