Ex Parte Seger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 2014

11855344 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 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. 11/855,344 09/14/2007 Patrik Seger 2002-681 / PU07 0292US1 6656 54472 7590 08/26/2014 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC 27518 EXAMINER GEORGEWILL, OPIRIBO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/26/2014 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 PATRIK SEGER and LELAND SCOTT BLOEBAUM _____________ Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 10–18, and 20–23. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 Claims 2, 8, 9, and 19 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for alerting a mobile device user to the proximity of a target party. Spec. para. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for alerting the user of a mobile device of the proximity of a target party, comprising: receiving an electronic location information message corresponding to the target party, said electronic location information message including a location descriptor but not including geographic coordinates; responsive to the electronic location information message, determining a target location estimate by retrieving geographic coordinates corresponding to the location descriptor and determining the target location estimate based on the geographic coordinates, wherein the target location estimate comprises a target location envelope based on the geographic coordinates and a first uncertainty parameter associated with the location descriptor; comparing the target location envelope to a bounded region surrounding a current position estimate for the mobile device; and selectively generating an alert at the mobile device based on the proximity of the target location estimate to the bounded region. REFERENCES Anthony US 2003/0063004 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 Riley US 2003/0125045 Al July 3, 2003 Laird US 2005/0085257 Al Apr. 21, 2005 Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 3 Bliss US 2007/0118520 Al May 24, 2007 Agapi US 2007/0139207 Al June 21, 2007 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 5–7, 10, 13–17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi in view of Bliss and in further view of Laird. Ans. 5–10. 2 Claims 3, 4, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi in view of Bliss in view of Laird and in further view of Riley. Ans. 10–12. Claims 11, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapi in view of Bliss in view of Laird and in further view of Anthony. Ans. 12–13. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “said electronic location information message including a location descriptor but not including geographic coordinates” and “determining the target location estimate based on the geographic coordinates, wherein the target location estimate comprises a target location envelope based on the geographic coordinates and a first uncertainty 2 The Examiner inadvertently removed Bliss and Laird from the statement of the rejection of claim 16 in the Final Office Action on page 11. Appellants noted this issue on page 22 of the Appeal Brief. Claim 16 is dependent upon claim 15 which is dependent upon claim 1. Since the rejection of claim 15 was incorporated by reference in the Final Office Action (pg. 11), we deem the omission to be harmless error. As such, we have included claim 16 in the statement of rejection here. Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 4 parameter,” as recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly recited in independent claims 18 and 23)? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “determining the target location estimate is further based on velocity information,” as recited in dependent claim 5? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “generating an alert when the target location envelope is outside the bounded region,” as recited in dependent claim 7? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “determining the bounded region based on the current position estimate and map data,” as recited in dependent claim 14? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, Laird, and Anthony teaches or suggests “comparing the target location envelope to a bounded region surrounding a current position estimate for the mobile device is performed at the mobile device,” as recited in dependent claim 11 and independent claim 23? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15–18, and 20–23 Independent claims 1 and 18 recite “said electronic location information message including a location descriptor but not including geographic coordinates.” The Examiner finds that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches the claim limitations. Ans. 6-8. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Agapi teaches receiving an electronic location information message. Ans. 6. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Bliss shows that it was known in the art to use GPS coordinates, an address, or a Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 5 location descriptor to pinpoint a specific location. Ans. 6. Thus, it is the combination of references that teach the disputed limitations. Ans. 6. Appellants disagree and specifically contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Agapi’s system of monitoring movements of a protected person and a restrainee with the help of a GPS positioning signal, with Bliss’s system of providing map data on a graphical display of a mobile phone based on a user provided location descriptor. App. Br. 15-18. First, we note that although the claims require that the electronic information message not include geographic coordinates, the claims do not preclude generating a location descriptor using geographic coordinates. Second, the Examiner’s position is not based on combining every aspect of the references. Instead, the Examiner is relying on Bliss to show that specific location can be identified in many ways. Ans. 6. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of references teaches the disputed limitation. Further, Appellants argue that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird does not teach or suggest “determining the target location estimate based on the geographic coordinates, wherein the target location estimate comprises a target location envelope based on the geographic coordinates and a first uncertainty parameter,” as recited in claims 1 and 18. (Emphasis added). Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 10–13. Appellants specifically argue that the Examiner “conflates the geographic coordinates, the target location estimate, the target location envelope, and the uncertainty parameter, treating them at various times as interchangeable.” Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 11–12. Additionally, Appellants contend that the teachings of Agapi, Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 6 Bliss, and Laird “simply cannot be combined to yield the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 11–12. We disagree. The Examiner finds (Ans. 17–20), and we agree, that the combination of reference teaches the disputed limitation. First, the Examiner finds that Agapi teaches determining the target location estimate based on geographic coordinates. Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner. Next, the Examiner finds that Laird teaches that there is an amount of uncertainty depending on the method used to determine the target location. Ans. 18. As such, the Examiner finds that Laird teaches a target location envelope based on the geographic coordinates and the amount of uncertainty that creates a radius around the target location. Ans. 7 and 17–20. We agree with the Examiner that this teaches the disputed limitation. Additionally, we find no reason why the combination could not be made by one of ordinary skill in the art. As indicated above, the Examiner is not combining every aspect of the references, but is using the references to show what is known in the art. Therefore, for all of the reasons indicated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 18 and claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15– 17, and 20–23, which are dependent upon one of independent claims 1 and 18 and are not argued with particularity. Claim 5 Appellants argue that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird does not teach or suggest “determining a target location estimate based on velocity information,” as recited in claim 5. Appeal Br. 19; Reply Br. 13. Appellants specifically argue that Agapi teaches correlating the velocities of each party in order to detect a predatory movement, not a location estimate. Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 7 Id. However, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 22) that Agapi teaches the disputed limitation because Agapi detects the relative locations and movements of both the protected person and the restrainee in order to determine whether a restrainee is a threat, i.e., the distance between the restrainee and the protected person is decreasing . See also Agapi, paras. 27–28. Therefore, for the reasons indicated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5. Claim 7 Claim 7 recites “generating an alert when the target location envelope is outside the bounded region.” The Examiner finds that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teach the limitations of claim 7. Ans. 9 and 22. Appellants contend that Agapi merely generates a warning when a pattern is detected or when a party moves within a bounded region, not when a party moves outside a bounded reason. Appeal Br. 20. We disagree. The Examiner specifically finds that Agapi issues a warning when the restrainee is outside of a restricted zone but within a surveillance zone. Ans. 9 and 22-23. We agree with the Examiner that this reads on the disputed limitation. Therefore, for the reasons indicated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Claim 14 Claim 14 recites “determining a bounded region based on a current position estimate and map data corresponding to a surrounding area.” Appellants argue that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird does not Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 8 teach this limitation because Agapi does not teach that the bounded region is determined based on map data. Appeal Br. 20; Reply Br. 13–14. We disagree. The Examiner finds that Agapi teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 22–23. We agree because Agapi teaches a monitoring system receiving GPS coordinates and plotting the GPS coordinates on a map which corresponds to a current position estimate (See Agapi, paras. 48 and 49). Once the GPS coordinates are plotted, Figures 5a and 5b of Agapi show a restricted zone defined by radius D is superimposed over a map, which corresponds to the bounded region. The system of Agapi generates a movement map which includes a position of the protected person and the restricted zone around the protected person over a period of time (See Agapi, Figs. 5a, 5b, paras. 38, 48, and 49). Therefore, the restricted zone is determined based on the position of the protected person on the map. As such, for all of the reasons indicated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14. Claims 11 and 23 Independent claim 23 and dependent claim 11 3 require comparing the target location envelope to a bounded region on the mobile device. The Examiner finds that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, Laird, and Anthony teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 12–13 and 23. However, the Examiner specifically finds that Anthony teaches monitoring on a mobile device the target location to a bounded region. Ans. 12–13 and 23. 3 Claim 11 depends from claim 1. Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 9 Appellants argue that Anthony’s subscriber accesses a service by a mobile device, but the reference says nothing about performing the comparing step on the mobile device. Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 14–15. In response, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to perform the comparing step on the mobile device so that an alert can be given in real time. Ans. 23. We agree. Appellants have not presented any arguments as to why performing “comparing” at the mobile device would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, for all of the reasons indicated supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 23. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “said electronic location information message including a location descriptor but not including geographic coordinates” and “determining the target location estimate based on the geographic coordinates, wherein the target location estimate comprises a target location envelope based on the geographic coordinates and a first uncertainty parameter,” as recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly recited in independent claims 18 and 23). The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “determining the target location estimate is further based on velocity information,” as recited in dependent claim 5. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “generating an alert when the target Appeal 2012–002558 Application 11/855,344 10 location envelope is outside the bounded region,” as recited in dependent claim 7. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, and Laird teaches or suggests “determining the bounded region based on the current position estimate and map data,” as recited in dependent claim 14. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Agapi, Bliss, Laird, and Anthony teaches or suggests “comparing the target location envelope to a bounded region surrounding a current position estimate for the mobile device is performed at the mobile device,” as recited in dependent claim 11 and independent claim 23. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 10–18, and 20–23 is sustained. 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 ELD